Thursday, February 21, 2008
The Fat Lady Sings: "It's We . . . Not I"
February 21, 2008
Every night since Super Tuesday I have listened to the pundits on National TV hoping to hear words of wisdom. The CNN contributors that grabbed my attention were John King, David Gergen, and one or two others. However, the discussion on Anderson Cooper's 360 was somewhat interesting. Noone asked me, but here are my thoughts anyway.
I'd like to tell Kelli Goff that the fat lady is clearing her throat and wiping her palms. In her mind she is preparing to burst into song, which will explode into an aria of historical significance; and at the top of the crescendo she will sing: "It's 'We' not 'I' silly!"
From "day one" (Hillary Clinton, Campaign '08), for the pundits who have yet to figure it out, Barack Obama's major theme has been "we are in this together! I cannot do this by myself." In contrast, Senator Clinton has lauded and applauded herself as "ready to lead from day one." "I have 35 years of experience," and "I know what to do!"
While the pundits seemed to like this line about 35 years of experience, they did, and do, Hillary Clinton a disservice. The analysts and experts (so-called) should have told her that the 35 years of experience of doing the same things the same way is a contradiction and an eraser to the "change." How could the experts of such a multi-million dollar campaign miss something so fundamental? Unfortunately for her, the no-so-supposedly-smart voters understood that change is a far cry from experience.
Meanwhile, John McCain, the great-good-ole-boys hope, can trump all the Democrats with a shout of experience, even though that in itself may be open to question. Years as a POW, tortured and villified, and several years of doing the same things over and over and over again does not satisfy the real meaning of the word "experience."
Let me explain further for those in opposition to this revelation. Imagine a teacher who comes into the classroom on the first day of school for the first time and discovers that something works for her and the class that day. She/he continues to do it that way for the rest of the year. Then on year 2, our teacher continues to greet and teach a new class of students the same way she did in year one. At the end of the second year, how would you classify that teacher? Does she have two years of experience, or does she have one year of experience two times? Now imagine that in 24 years she never did anything new or different, but continued to teach in the same way and manner as she did the very first year. Does she have 24 years of experience, or does she have one year of experience multiplied 24 times?
Let's taske this scenario and apply it to a political representative. After serving 6 terms in the Senate, what will the voters of his/her district say? "Will ordinary hard-working voters that have lived throughout the 24 year cycle, battered by inflation and rising taxes, bruised by joblessness and downsizing, crushed beneath the rhetoric of politicians who have not missed a meal and who get automatic raises, agree that that representative who has 24 years of experience should be rehired over someone "new and fresh" with newer ideas and up-to-date methods of governance and negotiation?
You see, my reader, that was why Dr. Martin King was so successful as leader of the Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA) in 1956. He had not been in Montgomery long enough for the city-fathers to put him in their pockets. He was new and fresh and "uncorrupted," which made him a standout and a man that the people could follow. The history of that movement should teach us a lesson now. And besides, Obama is correct. Any politician who took POL 111 should know that "change" comes from the bottom up, not from leaders on the top down. Such was the case with King, and such is what's happening with Obama now.
Barack Obama is new ("unexperienced" by Clinton and McCain's assessment) and fresh. He does have only a few years in the Senate. But that is exactly what the voters see. That is exactly the point that the pundits and political armchair exponents miss. Obama has not been in the U. S. Senate long enough for the fathers to corrupt him, and that is why he leads a movement in which 60-70% of white voters in some states are committed to go to the mat for him.
Yes! The fat lady will sing, and even if the Super delegates go against the explicit wish of so many new millions of adherents, Obama would have opened the door wide for the movement to overun the good-ole-boy network. The dilemma is obvious. Although Hillary has good credentials, she is seen as another member of the good-ole-boy network notwithstanding the gender equation. And what is more, "It's 'we' not 'I' silly."
Every night since Super Tuesday I have listened to the pundits on National TV hoping to hear words of wisdom. The CNN contributors that grabbed my attention were John King, David Gergen, and one or two others. However, the discussion on Anderson Cooper's 360 was somewhat interesting. Noone asked me, but here are my thoughts anyway.
I'd like to tell Kelli Goff that the fat lady is clearing her throat and wiping her palms. In her mind she is preparing to burst into song, which will explode into an aria of historical significance; and at the top of the crescendo she will sing: "It's 'We' not 'I' silly!"
From "day one" (Hillary Clinton, Campaign '08), for the pundits who have yet to figure it out, Barack Obama's major theme has been "we are in this together! I cannot do this by myself." In contrast, Senator Clinton has lauded and applauded herself as "ready to lead from day one." "I have 35 years of experience," and "I know what to do!"
While the pundits seemed to like this line about 35 years of experience, they did, and do, Hillary Clinton a disservice. The analysts and experts (so-called) should have told her that the 35 years of experience of doing the same things the same way is a contradiction and an eraser to the "change." How could the experts of such a multi-million dollar campaign miss something so fundamental? Unfortunately for her, the no-so-supposedly-smart voters understood that change is a far cry from experience.
Meanwhile, John McCain, the great-good-ole-boys hope, can trump all the Democrats with a shout of experience, even though that in itself may be open to question. Years as a POW, tortured and villified, and several years of doing the same things over and over and over again does not satisfy the real meaning of the word "experience."
Let me explain further for those in opposition to this revelation. Imagine a teacher who comes into the classroom on the first day of school for the first time and discovers that something works for her and the class that day. She/he continues to do it that way for the rest of the year. Then on year 2, our teacher continues to greet and teach a new class of students the same way she did in year one. At the end of the second year, how would you classify that teacher? Does she have two years of experience, or does she have one year of experience two times? Now imagine that in 24 years she never did anything new or different, but continued to teach in the same way and manner as she did the very first year. Does she have 24 years of experience, or does she have one year of experience multiplied 24 times?
Let's taske this scenario and apply it to a political representative. After serving 6 terms in the Senate, what will the voters of his/her district say? "Will ordinary hard-working voters that have lived throughout the 24 year cycle, battered by inflation and rising taxes, bruised by joblessness and downsizing, crushed beneath the rhetoric of politicians who have not missed a meal and who get automatic raises, agree that that representative who has 24 years of experience should be rehired over someone "new and fresh" with newer ideas and up-to-date methods of governance and negotiation?
You see, my reader, that was why Dr. Martin King was so successful as leader of the Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA) in 1956. He had not been in Montgomery long enough for the city-fathers to put him in their pockets. He was new and fresh and "uncorrupted," which made him a standout and a man that the people could follow. The history of that movement should teach us a lesson now. And besides, Obama is correct. Any politician who took POL 111 should know that "change" comes from the bottom up, not from leaders on the top down. Such was the case with King, and such is what's happening with Obama now.
Barack Obama is new ("unexperienced" by Clinton and McCain's assessment) and fresh. He does have only a few years in the Senate. But that is exactly what the voters see. That is exactly the point that the pundits and political armchair exponents miss. Obama has not been in the U. S. Senate long enough for the fathers to corrupt him, and that is why he leads a movement in which 60-70% of white voters in some states are committed to go to the mat for him.
Yes! The fat lady will sing, and even if the Super delegates go against the explicit wish of so many new millions of adherents, Obama would have opened the door wide for the movement to overun the good-ole-boy network. The dilemma is obvious. Although Hillary has good credentials, she is seen as another member of the good-ole-boy network notwithstanding the gender equation. And what is more, "It's 'we' not 'I' silly."
For What it's Worth . . .
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]