Godheval

“I think Democrats across the country tomorrow will be asking themselves why Senator Obama — with all of his money, with all of the great press, with voters being told he was the inevitable nominee — why did Senator Obama lose West Virginia by 15 points or so?”

—Howard Wolfson

Read More »

, words like “cunt” or “douche”. However, were Hillary Clinton a man, I can project with almost certainty that I would be calling “him” a “faggot”, even if he weren’t homosexual, and even if he were that wouldn’t have anything to do with my contempt. Words like “cunt” and “faggot” – both phonetically and socially – carry such power that there are virtually no substitutes in our language that can express such powerful disgust. The one exception of course, is “nigger”, but for obvious reasons I would not be likely to use that against Hillary Clinton if she happened to be African-American. This demonstrates a sort of lopsided disregard on my part for the prejudices towards aggrieved groups of people. That is no small thing, and while I could argue for why one form of prejudice has been more devastating than another, or why the three terms aren’t equal, I won’t.

Simply put, I am wrong in associating my distaste for Hillary Clinton with her gender, just as I’d be wrong with associating my disdain for a male Hillary with his sexuality – his actual orientation notwithstanding. However, this demonstrates something important with respect to the divide between Clinton supporters and Obama supporters. As I mentioned earlier, people who do not support Clinton – whether they support Obama or not – seem to have an intense dislike for Clinton herself, rather than just her campaign. On the other side, with the exception of people that would hate him whether or not he was running for President or not, people who don’t support Obama, or even who reject his candidacy, don’t feel – or at least don’t express – any hatred or disdain for the man himself.

There is a reason why Rush Limbaugh attempted his “Operation Chaos”, nevermind that he overestimates his influence. He pushed for Republicans to support Hillary Clinton in part because he wants the divide between Democrats to sustain itself. But Limbaugh and other conservatives have voiced that they favor Clinton over Obama for months before Operation Chaos. This is because she – regardless of what polls show – has less of a chance of defeating John McCain. This brings us back to my first point. The reason she has less of a chance is because she inspires such hatred and disdain. It is because of people’s intense disliking of Hillary Clinton as a person that they are blinded to whether or not the policies and positions she represents will benefit them. And this is her history, not something that has just begun in this election season. Obama inspires celebrity-style fanboy enthusiasm, and while much of it shallow and ignorant, that’s better than inspiring hatred.

That all said, in spite of the fact that I’ve made it glaringly obvious in my posts here, I’ve written a little essay on why I support Barack Obama for President, and to officially endorse his candidacy.

«

Read More »

.

It is a common cliche but also an obvious truism that “the youth are our future”. We look positively upon an electorate that is increasingly incorporating young people, upon the fact that they are willing to get involved in this process that affects them just as much as everyone else – if not more, since they will have longer to live with the consequences. At the very least, the involvement of more young people in the political process represents an increasing wealth of different perspectives, an increase in new perspectives. Is not the more temporally diverse electorate one that is more representative of the country as a whole? Does it not capture the image of a better America for the future?

Liberal

“Liberal” as we use the term today – albeit practically a derogatory term in some circles – seems to me to represent people who are more caring, more understanding, more in favor of changes that help rather than hurt people. The only legitimate criticism that anyone has of a liberal, really, is that they are too idealistic, perhaps even recklessly or dangerously so. But give social liberalism some grounding, some focus, and it would be the sociopolitical undercurrent of the America that I’d like to see in the future.

Diverse

Ethnic diversity, at least in the mainstream memetic climate, is the recipe of the day. Actually, it’s always been one of the things that Americans have held aloft as a characteristic that makes their country great. “We are a nation of immigrants”, you’ll hear people say. In the early days of this nation, before the disparate ethnic groups like Irish, Italian, Polish, Dutch, German, and British all confederated under the pretext of being “white”, that is, decidedly not black, this country was diverse. Now, with a steady influx of other ethnic groups over the past several hundred years, it’s become more diverse still. Although the only thing more American than diversity is, ironically, racism, I’d like to think that we still take pride in this unique social experiment. The America of the future, observing the running trend, is one that will be more diverse still. And as I see it, that only makes America better.

Educated

There is a gap between people who have gone further in their formal education and those who haven’t. I hesitate to make any qualitative distinction between the two, as there are many different and equally useful kinds of education, but at least we can say that being “highly educated” is seen as a virtue in our society, and throughout the world. Being “more educated”, whatever that means in any given situation, is never something looked upon negatively, except where it engenders elitism. But that has nothing to do with education itself, but with social stratification. Most, if not all of us, would look positively upon a country where every citizen has the opportunity to pursue their education to the desired end, rather than abandoning it due to the demands of everyday living and with it, financial constraints. That is to say, again, that being “more educated” is a good thing, and more representative of the American citizenry that we aspire to be.

Wealthy

Is not the “American dream” to be wealthy? Or to at least be financially secure? Do not most of us toil away at jobs or careers, or attend years and years of college, or invest anxiously towards that end? Are not our very lives built around the premise of acquiring a certain quality of life, and is not quality of life inexorably tied to wealth in our society? We – and by that I mean the majority of us who are not wealthy – mostly look at the wealthy with disdain because of the selfishness, recklessness, or carelessness which characterize how they use the money that they have and we do not. But just like how elitism is no strike against a person’s level of education, but against their socialization, their character, there is nothing wrong with wealth in itself. Indeed we scorn the wealthy under the pretext that if only we were wealthy, we would be predisposed to a different sort of behavior. Wishful thinking for most people, I imagine.

To sum things up, the qualities that characterize Barack Obama’s supporters are youth, wealth, education, diversity, and liberality – all things that we admire, respect, desire, aspire towards, or cherish. Demographically, the sector of the electorate that support Barack Obama represent those qualities that most, if not all of us, wish to see embodied in America as a whole.

There is hardly a stronger case for his candidacy. Ironically, though, this has less to do with the man himself than what he represents for people, what they project upon him – whether he realizes it or not, whether he lives up to it or not. Here I am not talking about policy or about the changes he claims he will make or about whether or not he can or will make them. I am talking about the fact that his candidacy – by virtue of those who support it – represents the ideals that made the very concept of this nation awesome, and that are vital to ensuring that it lives up to its prospects. And it is for this reason that I emphatically give my support to his bid for President of the United States.

«

Read More »

.

In trying not to be so biased, I really wonder what Clinton supporters see that I do not. Do they really buy all of her fluff? As an Obama supporter I am not so enamored with him that I forget that he, as President, would not have the power alone to bring about all the “change” he claims he will. After all, lest we forget, it is not the President who makes public policy. At best, he will stop blocking the progressive legislation that has tried to pass in recent years.

In spite of the likelihood that not too much will change even after 4 years of an Obama presidency, the reason I support him really is about things as simple and idealistic as “hope” and “change”. If he can get millions of people who were disillusioned with American politics to become interested again, or for the first time, then perhaps things could – by virtue of our power as citizens – truly change. Barack Obama becoming President would suggest to many people that things don’t have to remain the same, that our sustained hopes for something better for this country are not necessarily for naught.

«