…despite the similarities between his centrism and the Clintons’, despite everything, despite his saber rattling over Iran. Belacqua Jones writes:
“[I]t was during hubby BillHill’s administration that the coup de grace was administered to whatever integrity remained in our economic reporting system. As one critic explained it, ‘Unemployment was redefined to eliminate five million discouraged workers and to lower the unemployment rate; methodologies were changed to reduce poverty reporting, to reduce reported CPI inflation, to inflate reported GDP growth, among others.’
“Another technique for determining unemployment was to survey a sampling of 60,000 households. BillHill reduced this number by eliminating 10,000 inner city households from the survey. All of a sudden, there was a significant drop in Black unemployment[.]
“It all gets down to a question of what kind of president America wants. Do we want someone like HillBill who has years of expertise in creating virtual reality, or do we want someone like Obama who will get us all upset by telling us the truth?”
Read the whole post. Then consider this post on Sean Bell. Then call me self-hating for being white and female and not having voted for Hillary. Then remember that IRL I am often told by white people that I am not interested enough in them, because I am not exclusively interested in them. Then consider why despite “intersectionality” and my extreme opposition to patriarchy my first loyalty might not be to whiteness.
16 thoughts on “Why I Am For Obama…”
I only ask why you assume his policies and actions are also hers, or will also be hers?
Been following along here, though haven’t commented in awhile!!
Re: Sean Bell, I cannot believe it, and of course I can. Though I cannot believe that AGAIN, this is the outcome. Yet, I can.
I am ashamed that the only media coverage I indulge in these days is Clinton/Obama coverage. I used to be such an activist blogger. Now my head is shoved way, way down in the sand.
I only ask why you assume his policies and actions are also hers, or will also be hers?
I was wondering the same thing. It is a form of sexism to meld the wife into the husband. There are several issues that she plans to be a whole lot more progressive with than Bill. Off the top of my head, gay rights.
There are many issues that my husband and I do not agree on, many. I would be insulted if someone assumed my husband’s stance was my stance.
Aha, so the Internet blinked and I lost my comment.
It was more eloquent but now I have to prepare class so I’m not sure I can reconstruct.
Hillary runs on “experience,” though … what experience does she mean beyond her Senate seat? And her record includes votes for war and Patriot Act, and her plans: “obliterate” Iran.
And do you really think she won’t use Bill’s connections? I would. Talk to Bill? I would. If her experience is the First Lady experience, then she must mean she had a big part in planning policy and strategy. And her general stance isn’t too far from his. I think the point people are making when they say “Billary” is that the Clintons *are* similar, not that Hillary is a mouthpiece for Bill (it could be the other way around).
And then there’s Jeremiah Wright, whom I like.
Check out Momo’s post on the latest from him:
Also: the Kennedy brothers are often thought of together, what is that … Jesse Jackson Sr. and Jr. … Mary and Mitch Landrieu, children of Moon Landrieu … Hale Boggs, Lindy Claiborne Boggs, and for that matter their daughter Cokie Roberts.
I also tend to associate Jeb, George W., and George H.W. Bush with one another. And their ideas / policies are similar and I am sure they discuss them together.
I had a twinge this week of wanting to vote for her, when I was visiting a former patron of mine who told me (background: the primaries are being covered very extensively here in the national news) that he just cannot stand her voice. He would vote against her if he were a U.S. citizen because he cannot stand her voice.
Sorry, Prof. Zero–I agree with Redstar and ekitty. Calling them BillHill is a way to minimize her experience and qualifications. (Please compare her to other “legacy” presidential candidates–George W. Bush, for example. Is there really any comparison?) She’s worked her butt off in public service all her life, and the reason that many people think they can dismiss or overlook it is by erasing anything she did while First Lady of Arkansas or the U.S. This is a classic trick of erasing women’s work while letting someone else take the credit.
Furthermore it’s a different decade and a different era than the 1990s. B. Clinton had to spend way too much of his time, energy, and political capital blocking congress, which was taken over by Republicans in 1994. Said congress repaid his efforts by impeaching him (but failing to convict), which took up most of the second term of his presidency. Her policies are not his–and she’s learned from his bad policies and mistakes (DOMA, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and NAFTA.) Any new Democratic president, be it Obama or Clinton, will have to pick some issues and places to block the all-Dem congress, so as not to make people panic over the spectre of one-party rule. (My hope is that the new Dem Prez would run to Congress’s left, but I’m not optimistic that that will happen.)
And, please: Obama is the one who went on Fox News this weekend and loved him up some Ronald Reagan, tort reform, and deregulation! You don’t see HRC playing it that way.
Servetus–follow your twinge!
I have never liked either Clinton, their attitudes, their policies or their programs. Since we have to have a centrist candidate I’ll take the other one. Remember, I was for Kucinich and I never voted for Bill Clinton, always voted for third parties.
This post was not about whom to vote for for President as much as it was about economic policies, and Obama’s “gaffe” about people being frustrated, and the points Jeremiah Wright has to make.
From what I understand of the Obama comments on Reagan he means getting the country together … let’s get together and feel all right. You know: one love, one heart. He remembers Reagan Democrats and hopes for Obama Republicans. I of course think this is weird but I don’t read it as meaning an endorsement of Reagan policies. I *do* think it is important now to think about issues not political parties if we are to get anything done. People are *so* disaffected otherwise. I think that’s what he is trying to get at.
It may be true that “the O-man” is just globalization with a nicer face but I still say I think he can be pushed further leftward than Hillary and that is why I prefer him.
By which I do not mean I think Obama is left. I do think he is less corrupt and less self serving and not part of a political family and more pleasant and more internationally oriented and less chauvinistically American.
I have also never really figured out why it is that women who do agree more with Hillary than I do think that I should put my opinions aside and support them and her. Would you put your opinions aside and vote for Cynthia McKinney because I said so? Note that I wouldn’t call you racist or sexist if you didn’t.
Prof. Zero–I don’t think you should put aside your opinions. I respect that you prefer Obama, as do slightly more than half of all Democratic primary voters and caucus-goers (so far!)
I should have clarified: I was taking issue with your elision of “HillBill,” not your preference for Obama. There are plenty of good reasons to prefer him–I just wanted to challenge the notion that H. Clinton should be held accountable for everything people didn’t like about the B. Clinton presidency.
I like Cynthia McKinney just fine, but I live in a state that *could* be a battleground state, so I’ll play it safe and vote for the Dem.
Never liked the Clintons, though I preferred her to him…then welfare reform came along, ahem. And then.. and then.. and then… and then I spied Madleine Albright on the stage in Iowa and then…her recent remarks about Iran…and then… well.
Robert Scheer rightly points out that Obama is really a moderate but he is the kind of moderate that I can live with.
I agree with historiann, I’m not asking you to put your opinions aside, I’m just looking for you to elucidate your statements, because to my ear there is sexism. And I’m glad I did, because I find all your reasoning in the comments compelling.
If there were a greater difference between the Clintons and Hillary were more noticeably further left than Bill then I would be more Hillary inclined.
I’m more or less like Rebel Girl on this. I understand perfectly well that Hillary is another person – one I *also* disagree with on policy issues.
HillBill is Belacqua’s term, perhaps I should have put a disclaimer. But I liked Belacqua’s larger points.
I’m surprised no one’s commented yet on my favorite part of your post (tho I don’t know what “IRL” means): “Then remember that IRL I am often told by white people that I am not interested enough in them, because I am not exclusively interested in them. Then consider why despite ‘intersectionality’ and my extreme opposition to patriarchy my first loyalty might not be to whiteness.”
Very well put. It is interesting how Hillary’s gender is supposed to equal Obama’s race, yet the latter gets so, so much more attention.
Hi Macon and gracias!!! IRL = in real life. (Why they don’t comment: because it is so hard to wrap one’s mind around the idea of not putting white people first. “I am just not that interested in what most white guys have to say” is a very shocking sentence to pronounce if you are also white.)
I was for Hillary first but then conceded that perhaps it was time for Obama. Worked for Obama as volunteer and rallied, in every sense, to support Health Care Reform. Of course, this is “after the facts”, but Obama’s Presidency has been a total waste and a huge deception (as far as I can tell). That there has been sabotage, yes. No question about it. But a true leader would have found ways around it. Obama did not. What a pity!.
He has turned out to be exactly like what I thought Hillary would be. Which was the risk I took — that he might not be that bad. But he is.