Iraq will make all the difference
I know it has been a while. I know I only blog when I have something negative to say about how I perceive the Clinton campaign to be faltering. I know you eagerly await my musings and often grow impatient in the silence. But that's how it has to be.
A few things. One is that I still cannot stand Maureen Dowd's smugness. Two is that people like Obama for only a few reasons (on which I will elaborate shortly), and Clinton should have used this to her advantage months ago. Three is that a Baudrillardian analysis of the media can provide a refreshing take on the state of political affairs.
Allow me to elaborate on point two...Obama has a few main claims to fame, some more sensible than others. People like him because he is a black politician who has achieved a celebrity-like status. I, too, like him because of that. He is inspirational (aka he can deliver an articulate speech that feeds off of the energy of a crowd). If this inspiration of which people speak increases American interest in politics and the status of the world around them (unlikely), it is very significant. If it allows people to rally around a particular candidate as though he were a mythical JFK, a mere symbol of inspiration and youth whose basis is rooted in his status as a celebrity, and whose status as a celebrity is rooted in his symbolic inspiration and youth (more likely), it is thoroughly meaningles. (If I were selecting my candidate based on this supposed inspiration, I'd rather vote for Steven Colbert; at least he is funny.) Obama did not support the invasion of Iraq. A point that he has been mentioning every time Clinton opens her mouth. So far, their disagreement on the issue (even though contrived, still less so than their differences on anything else) has been a great success for Obama. Democrats are less supportive of the war, he is able to liken her to President Bush and identify himself as a more liberal (aka young, inspirational, Kennedian) candidate. He has done a fantastic job painting this picture, and she has done an awful job defending herself. Now that the war is suddenly popular again (mainly because the media has turned its attention elsewhere and are no longer reporting the casualties), Obama's popularity in the national polls vis-a-vis McCain is falling.
I never expected the public's opinion on a significant issue to change so quickly. (How did my sarcasm come across?)
Right on cue, I prove myself correct. In an Obama versus McCain general election, Obama does not stand a chance if people are in a pro-national security mood. Remember *shudder* John Kerry? Remember how he could orate convincingly for hours about why he was the better candidate and Bush could respond by saying 'internets' and emerge a victor? That, my fellow Americans, is because of masculinity. As I have been saying for years, literally for years - check my blog history, when the national image is on the line, people vote for the more masculine candidate. We perceive the President as a national father and will vote for someone who looks the part; a tough but supposedly sensible protector of the nation.
If the war in Iraq is seen favorably, more independents will be drawn to McCain. McCain will use the war as a major vantage point and Obama will be unable to opt out of this timeless debate. He can talk about health care, NAFTA, gun control, abortion, drug laws, fiscal responsibility, energy conservation, immigration, trout fishing and apricot souffles all he wants, and all McCain will have to say is 'national security'. Obama's only experience with national security is when he disagreed with the war in Iraq, and in relation, will look weak, naive and most importantly..wait for it...foreign. Mark my words, the McCain campaign (or a proxy) will easily make a connection between Obama's opposition to Iraq and possible tie to terrorism. And if you believe it is too far fetched, too improbable, offensive or absurd to happen, I have only 4 words. Swift boat veterans for truth. Ok, 5 words.
The only one (I am getting so sick of typing this sentence) who can opt out of this never-ending cycle of tougher-than-thou is Hillary Clinton, because she is not a man. Where Obama's race will fail, Clinton's gender would succeed.
That is all for now. Later I will elaborate more on a) why gender is more significant within this context than race b) a Baudrillardian analysis of culture, in particular how Hillary Clinton appeared on SNL to mock herself mocking herself, but also how people's perception of the war in Iraq can change simply because it is no longer being discussed c) Obama's role as inspirational, and its limitations (to white voters).
A few things. One is that I still cannot stand Maureen Dowd's smugness. Two is that people like Obama for only a few reasons (on which I will elaborate shortly), and Clinton should have used this to her advantage months ago. Three is that a Baudrillardian analysis of the media can provide a refreshing take on the state of political affairs.
Allow me to elaborate on point two...Obama has a few main claims to fame, some more sensible than others. People like him because he is a black politician who has achieved a celebrity-like status. I, too, like him because of that. He is inspirational (aka he can deliver an articulate speech that feeds off of the energy of a crowd). If this inspiration of which people speak increases American interest in politics and the status of the world around them (unlikely), it is very significant. If it allows people to rally around a particular candidate as though he were a mythical JFK, a mere symbol of inspiration and youth whose basis is rooted in his status as a celebrity, and whose status as a celebrity is rooted in his symbolic inspiration and youth (more likely), it is thoroughly meaningles. (If I were selecting my candidate based on this supposed inspiration, I'd rather vote for Steven Colbert; at least he is funny.) Obama did not support the invasion of Iraq. A point that he has been mentioning every time Clinton opens her mouth. So far, their disagreement on the issue (even though contrived, still less so than their differences on anything else) has been a great success for Obama. Democrats are less supportive of the war, he is able to liken her to President Bush and identify himself as a more liberal (aka young, inspirational, Kennedian) candidate. He has done a fantastic job painting this picture, and she has done an awful job defending herself. Now that the war is suddenly popular again (mainly because the media has turned its attention elsewhere and are no longer reporting the casualties), Obama's popularity in the national polls vis-a-vis McCain is falling.
I never expected the public's opinion on a significant issue to change so quickly. (How did my sarcasm come across?)
Right on cue, I prove myself correct. In an Obama versus McCain general election, Obama does not stand a chance if people are in a pro-national security mood. Remember *shudder* John Kerry? Remember how he could orate convincingly for hours about why he was the better candidate and Bush could respond by saying 'internets' and emerge a victor? That, my fellow Americans, is because of masculinity. As I have been saying for years, literally for years - check my blog history, when the national image is on the line, people vote for the more masculine candidate. We perceive the President as a national father and will vote for someone who looks the part; a tough but supposedly sensible protector of the nation.
If the war in Iraq is seen favorably, more independents will be drawn to McCain. McCain will use the war as a major vantage point and Obama will be unable to opt out of this timeless debate. He can talk about health care, NAFTA, gun control, abortion, drug laws, fiscal responsibility, energy conservation, immigration, trout fishing and apricot souffles all he wants, and all McCain will have to say is 'national security'. Obama's only experience with national security is when he disagreed with the war in Iraq, and in relation, will look weak, naive and most importantly..wait for it...foreign. Mark my words, the McCain campaign (or a proxy) will easily make a connection between Obama's opposition to Iraq and possible tie to terrorism. And if you believe it is too far fetched, too improbable, offensive or absurd to happen, I have only 4 words. Swift boat veterans for truth. Ok, 5 words.
The only one (I am getting so sick of typing this sentence) who can opt out of this never-ending cycle of tougher-than-thou is Hillary Clinton, because she is not a man. Where Obama's race will fail, Clinton's gender would succeed.
That is all for now. Later I will elaborate more on a) why gender is more significant within this context than race b) a Baudrillardian analysis of culture, in particular how Hillary Clinton appeared on SNL to mock herself mocking herself, but also how people's perception of the war in Iraq can change simply because it is no longer being discussed c) Obama's role as inspirational, and its limitations (to white voters).
Labels: clinton, iraq, mccain, national security, obama
posted by peuryan at 10:09 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home