I think in Daniel's latest post on the Big O he calls Oprah Winfrey a man. But this struck me as delightfully counterintuitive yet ultimately not so persuasive:
Obama’s gift is to make what is otherwise obviously an aggressive rhetorical move seem completely inoffensive and almost boring. It doesn’t sound like the sort of “red meat” denunciations that partisans want to hear, but it is all the more politically dangerous for conservatives because of that. With perfunctory nods to the importance of family and personal responsibility, his God-talk and his rhetoric of American unity, Obama smuggles his very progressive record past those sentries who are always on the lookout for the next big left-winger. People who somehow found the eminently centrist Howard Dean to be a scary and unhinged zealot find the genuinely left-wing Obama charming and amiable and (here’s the key word) unthreatening. Thus, in the bizarre estimations of many Republicans, Hillary Clinton, the embodiment of DLC centrism and cynical difference-splitting, supposedly represents the radical left who will tear the country apart even more, while Obama represents a less polarising and more broadly appealing kind of politics, yet he is objectively to the left of everyone in the Democratic field (except on the war) aside from Dennis Kucinich and perhaps the current, latest incarnation of John Edwards.
I think the estimation of many Republicans is that, very simply, neither Hillary Clinton's candidacy for President nor her administration, should she be elected, is legitimate. I think Republicans that hate Hillary believe rather straightforwardly that the reasons why Hillary Clinton wants to be President are corrosive to politics and liberty; that she is an usurpress; that she has no qualifications for the highest public office, and that her ability to position herself as having such is the phony and false product of having stayed married to Bill Clinton for the same reason she wants to be President.
With Hillary, it's personal, because the understanding is that for Hillary it's personal. Her self -- every element of it -- is considered to be held together by a flattery of lies maintained to fill her bankruptcy as a wife and as a person with the power of personal command. I think the conviction really boils down to the idea that Hillary has sold her soul for power, that she has accepted the unacceptable and asked for more while smiling in a Faustian bargain for the opportunity to force Americans to do what she thinks they should. I think the idea is that Hillary Clinton is really a sinner and a tyrant, and likes it. What she stands for, in that light, is really neither here nor there. Barack Obama may be a rank amateur with horrible ideas, but at least he deserves to run for President and deserves to govern if he wins.
At least that's what the finger I keep at the pulse of Red State America is telling me.
Bill Clinton , Hillary or Obama ...have one thing in common .....they are Weak & Phoney Leaders ....America needs strong & decisive leadership like the one given by Vladmir Putin ....*even George Bush is okay....Bill Clinton had no character ( Sorry for him ) ...Hillary is Phoney ( To her Bone ) ...We don't know Obama ( Maybe he is a muslim )..We wish Condellizza Rice Contests ...She is the BEST Candidate ...apart from being a Black & a Strong Women ...She would be doing America a Favour ...You people are Welcome to visit my Website on India : www.freewebs.com/nraja
Posted by: Raja | December 21, 2007 at 05:30 AM