In examining the dynamic in the current presidential race, it is necessary to understand that Hillary's candidacy was essentially meant to be a continuation of the Obama administration, his "third term" as it were. Her upset caused a lot of finger-pointing, the claim of Russian interference being a particularly self-serving scapegoat. What should have been cause for some serious reflection and introspection instead served to make assigning blame a growth industry, all the while avoiding what was really at the heart of the matter.
Joe Biden is now offered up as Obama's third term, albeit with a one term break in the cycle. On some things he's got more baggage than Hillary, and in other areas he's less competent than her. But, in the DNC's mind, at least not being a woman should give him an advantage over Hillary (on the presumption that misogyny played a pivotal role in sinking Hillary as she steamed towards her preordained coronation). His committing to a female running mate, and quite possibly a WOC, is meant to deflect some of the criticism of his own behavior towards women, and would certainly be a plus as far as helping ease the pain many felt from Hillary's loss.
I also felt sad that the glass ceiling hadn't been broken yet, as that moment would be a tremendous first in US history just as it was with the election of Barack Obama. I understand how significant it is for these barriers to fall, but ideally they fall because of the ideas and character of any given individual of whatever group they're considered to represent has going for them, not just because they are in a previously excluded group.
One could reject Sarah Palin as unqualified for the office based on facts not involving her gender. Hillary was sold as being the "most qualified" to hold the office, without much discussion or allowance as to what ends she would put those qualifications towards. Supporting Jill Stein was no defense against the misogyny smears, while Stein could be attacked in any manner without that becoming part of the narrative. The same held true for centrist Dems that attacked Tulsi Gabbard or Marianne Williamson. Criticisms made against other female candidates in the Democratic primaries tended to get dismissed as being largely gender based. I would have loved for Kamala Harris to be the type of presidential Democratic nominee I could support. I voted for her as my Senator. I stopped voting for Diane Feinstein a couple of cycles back and honestly can't wait for her to be gone. Pelosi too.
But while Harris would be groundbreaking as far as ticking off various identity boxes, she would be a continuation of the status quo in too many other ways. And she is quite likely to be the VP candidate, if Joe can get past the sick burn she laid on him in the debate calling him out for fighting desegregation.
This rather lengthy forward is to introduce this piece on examining President Obama's legacy. There is so much hagiography of Obama and his administration that ignores a lot of the reality. I voted for him twice and his was one of the few campaigns I'd ever donated to. But I understood the frustration of those that felt abandoned by his administration because the change they so desperately needed never materialized. That factor played a key role in Hillary's loss to Trump. A drowning person is likely to grasp at any perceived lifeline, and post election analysis confirmed this (people stayed home, voted for Trump, or third party, in districts that overwhelmingly supported Obama twice before). Those same factors are in play with Biden. A third term for Obama administration policies is not the winning strategy that many are convinced it is. Joe's "Nothing will essentially change," statement is about as tone deaf as one can imagine.
:-----:
Glenn Loury ─ Reflections on the Obama Legacy
2
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
3 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.Well, there i was, reading along, not necessarily agreeing but enjoying following your reasoning, then you mentioned SARAH PALIN??????????!!!!!!!! Bu-bye!
AnneWimsey
Level 9
June 22, 2020
1
The point about Palin being that it does not follow that criticisms of Clinton have to be because of misogyny. It does not matter if Clinton is smarter or more accomplished. I'd be calling her out for her politics regardless of her gender. I'm calling out Joe Biden regardless of his party affiliation.
I have no idea what your storming off in a huff is supposed to accomplish other than register your displeasure. Duly noted, for whatever that's worth.
@WilliamCharles ummm, "criticisms....because of misogyny"? I do not understand you at all....nobody in public life espe ially, is immune from criticism, nor should they be. And you can put your "in a huff" remark where the sun fails to shine, totally uncalled for, as is dragging Palin into your "serious" post....if you want 8ntell8gent discussion, you should leave the clown references out.
@AnneWimsey - you're welcome to discuss the issue in any manner you see fit. You'll forgive me if I choose to do the same.
@WilliamCharles a loser/stoner movie is your big comeback?
@AnneWimsey - Wow. You sure want to make this some sort of pissing contest. It's not a "big comeback" as you describe it... it's simply my take. I've replied to the points you've made whether I agreed with them or not. The clip expressed just that. We've got differing views. I chose to provide the rationale for mine, even in the face of you choosing to get snotty about it. Whatever. I don't really know anything about you or your opinions for the most part, and other than offering a response in defense of my own views, don't really care. Hence, The Big Lebowski reference.
Besides, you already given your big "Bu-bye!," but you keep coming back like a bad penny. You've said your piece. How can I miss you if you won't leave? So, don't go away mad... just go away. In a huff, or in a minute and a huff. No Idea why the mention of Palin triggered you. I suppose I could have said Margaret Thatcher or Theresa May as I can't stand them either, but they're not US politics. No need to try to untangle it anyway, you've got too much of a hair trigger. You might want to try being less antagonistic in discussions with strangers next time. I don't mind debating anything, but it was too early for you to go full on bombastic like that.
YMMV.
Actually, the Obama Administration was the third term of the Clinton Administration, with a young impressive African-American guy at the helm, and Hillary's Administration was supposed to be the fourth or is that the fifth administration of the Clinton administration, but since millions and millions looked at these administrations and saw nothing but crap in their own lives while the rich elites lived in luxury and opulence, and for some inexplicable reason they didn't vote her in or vote in sufficient numbers to secure a victory. That, my friend, is about the size of that.
David1955
Level 8
June 22, 2020
0
The everpresence of political dynasty.
@WilliamCharles I see it as the inevitable result of faux mass centre right political parties, devoid of ideology, corrupted and controlled by corporate interests, selling the same dead product, dressed up to look alive, which has been the death of progressive politics in the West, leading to gross social and economic inequality and the rise of right wing populism and authoritarian politics and ultimately the death of democracy, if not stopped. In the 1970s when I studied political science left wing writers warned that this would happen if parties on the left betrayed core values. They were right.
@David1955 - that assessment seems to fit the bill. And by political dynasty, I did not mean as in Kennedys, Bushes, and Clinton's as much as the power blocs that keep a tight grip on the reins of power throughout their respective parties. Bill Clinton established the third way neoliberalism that opened up the corporate feeding trough for the party. Establishment Dems are entrenched and see their primary purpose as kneecapping progressive upstarts that might threaten their stranglehold on operations.The DNC is essentially an arm of the Clinton wing.
Ummmm,Hillary got 3 million more votes, so where does that leave your remark...?
@AnneWimsey - there were multiple instances of DNC shenanigans. Superdelegates voted against the results of their state, exit polling showed discrepancies, MSM outlets had a virtual blackout on Bernie coverage, debate schedule meant to prevent Bernie exposure, voter roll scrubbing, superdelegates were added to Hillary's tally before they cast a single votes, etc., etc. If she was such a strong candidate, she wouldn't have had to have the DNC put their thumb on the scale. She was just as tone-deaf post convention. She said she didn't need to do anything to win over progressive votes because of her supposed massive victory margin.
Well written post. Dont agree 100%, but can't detract from the well thought out arguments.
t1nick
Level 8
June 21, 2020
1
I truly appreciate your comment. You might be surprised at how any expression of something other than an absolute declaration of party unity gets one labeled a troll, a Russian bot, or an irrational purist. I start from a position of an honest personal viewpoint and go from there. Sometimes I revise those views based on someone else's take. Hearing others offer their own pros and cons helps me fine tune my own understanding.
I've often told religionists who I've debated with when they try to convert me or convince me of their godview that I consider it a sign of respect to share my views openly and honestly, particularly after saying something about their God or belief they find upsetting. I shouldn't need to sugarcoat my own views to the extreme in order that they not get indignant. That's happen quite frequently as well.
Anyway, I'll piss and moan about Biden and the duopoly at least until the Dem convention. It's to be seen if they can work to earn progressive votes. I largely consider his insistence that he'd veto M4A if it was passed by Congress a dealbreaker. But Joe's been behind the curve on so many issues, why should universal healthcare be any different? Joe is largely a tool of corporate interests, and I don't expect the will of the electorate to matter all that much to him.
I generally concur. I'm not a Biden fan, but given a choice of Biden or Trump, I'll take Biden. Lesser of two evils, evil of two lessers.
I think that Biden will begin to heal some of the damage Trump had done without further destroying the Democracy. A wise VP choice could set us up with a good replacement for a Biden one term Presidency.
I'm a progressive, but have never been affiliated with any political party. Never will. Lol
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Related Groups More
Trump Pinata
1137 members
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.