fishin wrote:blatham wrote:Another way to put that...
Do you consider it likely that Obama's wife is "rankled" by his PR skills and charm?
I think that'd be stretching credibility a bit and missing the point entirely. Obama's wife isn't trying to be the center of public attention or running for public office. When they go out in public together the crowd doesn't show up to see her nor does she get coverage in major news outlets every time she steps out of her house.
Bill, on the other hand, gets it whether he (or Hillary!) wants it or not. People go to events specifically to see Bill - even if it is one of Hillary's campaign events.
But take this example in tandem with the preceding one I offered. My point is that where folks can be very quick to suppose some level of rather petty envy on the part of Hillary, they are not so quick to jump there re Obama. And frankly, I see no proper justification for such assumptions.
My sincere wish is that Obama gains the nomination and then the Presidency. It isn't that I consider he will be a more effective executor of the post than Hillary would be. My money would be on her as regards that important element but he looks to have the intelligence, curiosity and humility which could make him a great executive too. My preference for him arises from my perception of his potential to inspire and reinvigorate politics in the US...to replace the mean-spiritedness and divisiveness of the last two decades or more with something more inclusive, open, just, charitable and democratic.
But we'd better acknowledge that the right has built up, over that same period of time, a very effective and pervasive (and highly ideological) organization which will vigorously resist any democratic government. They will, I think it is certain, attempt to do to Obama (if president) what they set out to do with Clinton...derogate, demean and thwart (see Bill Kristol's memo of the period forwarding a strategy of stopping Hillary's medicare initiative PRECISELY because, if it succeeded, it would gain the dems a level of popularity that would make future republican electoral gains very difficult to achieve...in plain english, phuck citizens' health and well-being, we want power.)
That campaign directed its attacks squarely at Hillary. "Who elected her?" was a prime talking point as if cabinets and white house offices aren't filled with appointees (Rove, Feith, Wolfowitz, etc etc). And the undercurrent to this campaign utilized common sentiments regarding the "inappropriateness" of women in power...such "ambition" on the part of a woman shows she doesn't know her place...she's verging on the pathological.
And a lot of you folks have bought this narrative (forwarded by a media system which itself thrives on such shallow and spoon-feedable notions) and it really pisses me off, to be honest.
