Curmudgeonly commentiousness

April 27, 2008

She is woman; they hear her roar

Hillary Clinton’s run for the American White House began in 1776, when Abigail Adams wrote to her husband: “remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors.”

In their statement of independence, John Adams and his compatriots declared “all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.”

But some “men” were more equal than others. Blacks were only three-fifths of a man, a precept accepted in print, if not in unanimous principle. Women were not allowed to vote until 1920.

Nearly two and-a-half centuries after the national declaration of equality.

More than a century and-a-half after a bloody war to abolish the enslavement of Americans of African descent.

In 2008, women finally have an opportunity to finish the job Mrs. Adams began as her husband made his way to Philadelphia to help create a new nation upon the globe.

“Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation.”

They are fomenting a rebellion, those women who have been kept “in their place” these many years. They understand being told, by societal acquiescence if not by statute, their job is to care for children so their husbands can go off to slay a beast for dinner.

Hillary Clinton has grown up through the ‘70s when women burned their bras and began taking hammers to glass ceilings.

When women decided they did not need men for any reason other than to make — not raise — babies.

When she cried in New Hampshire, thousands of New England women understood.

I had a friend in college whose husband was a dairy farmer. When she graduated and wanted to put her degree to use, he objected.

He had allowed her to go to college; now she should return to help on the farm.

Hillary Clinton knows about those women. Thirty-five years of campaigning have taught her how to touch them.

She won last week in Pennsylvania by touching the same women. Women wished they could do things, not necessarily instead of, but in addition to, raising children.

There is an acceptance in this nation, in spite of a vast reservoir of empirical evidence, that men of color could, if they wished, be as successful as any white man.

But women, including women of color, know in their bones that is not true for them. They have stood in the bars with their hard-working men and drank shots and beers. They did not necessarily approve, but they did it. They have cried because they have been denied opportunities given by right to their men.

They are proud of their husbands and sons, but now it is their turn, and Hillary is their standard bearer. For a large number of them, large enough number to keep her in the contest, and maybe enough to help her win it, nothing else matters.

If Hillary Clinton beats Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination, it will be because she knows how to touch those women, and he does not.

He never will. He is a man.

April 24, 2008

One of the guys?

The Pennsylvania voting results were a bit amazing.

We regularly hear politicians and Mothers Against Drunk Driving rail against underage drinking. It’s unsafe, they say. It kills kids, they wail. It is a poor example tailgate partying adults provide their offspring, getting drunk to have a good time.

And then those same mothers give the go-ahead to a would-be national role model who downs boilermakers in an Indiana tavern on national TV, for no other purpose than to show she’s one of the guys.

“Every time I get around you we always start drinking!” CBS News’ Fernando Suarez quoted Hammond, Ind., Mayor Tom Hammond.

“That’s true,” Clinton said. “It is Saturday night, though.”

That’s an excuse?

But whether the event was staged (which is likely) or real (which it also could have been), the question is, or should be, raised: Is reducing the legal drinking age simply a politically advantageous way to get 18-t0-21-year-olds or their parents to pay a couple of bucks to the tavern for a beer, and a couple hundred in “voluntary tax” to the local municipality?

April 21, 2008

Obama’s presidential-aspiration hurdle

Ask any politician and the answer will be the same: Whether his purpose is to serve the people or line his own pockets, the thing that counts is the number of votes on election day. Sure, there’s the occasional John McCain out there, saying he’d rather lose the election than lie, but deep down he knows a little obfuscation may be necessary if he’s to get the job that will let him do what he thinks needs doing.

That’s why we’re in Iraq. After 9-1-1, we were — the majority of us, anyway — ready to kill a bunch of Muslim Extremists. And they were all Muslim Extremists.

Saudi Arabia may have been friendly, but those 19 murdering suicide skyjackers were mostly Saudis. And Saddam Hussein was a flat out bad guy who’d gas his own people to quell insurrection. Kill ‘em all.

And we set off to do that. A lot of us thought maybe moving on Iraq was a bad idea, but we were not the politicians who had to give President Bush the go-ahead, and we were not the majority of voters who were pressuring the politicians to give President Bush the go-ahead.

The vast majority of us were buying newspapers and watching television that went along with the attack-Iraq argument; the news media stays in business by reflecting, by its choice and treatment of stories, what its consumers want, and we wanted blood.

Obama was right. When we’ve been lied to enough times by our government, we reduce our litmus from broad concepts to narrow concrete choices: for or against gun control, pro-life or pro-choice, Christian or Islamic.

It’s not that we didn’t have those beliefs all along, but in a sound-bite world, those issues become symbolic of our world view. Is the Constitution meaningful, especially in a nation whose government is whittling away at personal rights? Is life, especially that of babies and other helpless among us, sacred? Are we to defend ourselves, even preemptively, against foreign attackers.

When times are really tough, and our lives are not under our control, we look for someone to blame, or at least someone who promises to save us. Ask Hitler about blaming the Jews for the economic hard times in Germany. Ask any preacher about how the population in the pews and money in the collection basket relates to the local economy.

Ask Ronald Reagan. We laughed at Bonzo the chimp, but we quickly turned out a southern military leader whose rescue helicopters crashed in the desert in favor of a cowboy in a white hat and Winchester who promised to give those Eye-ranians their due.

And when his administration did things that were not exactly legal, we turned away and joked about he must have been asleep and didn’t know what was going on.

Barack Obama, and others like him, have to learn to walk the very fine line between “condescending” and “patronizing.” They don’t have to down shots in redneck bars, and they don’t have to bowl a 200-plus game, but they do have to find that middle point between “I know stuff” and “you don’t.”

Most people respect education — as long as they don’t feel forced to admit they don’t have it.

In the end, it’s not whether you’re right or wrong; it’s how many votes you tally on election night.

April 20, 2008

No second-place winners

Pundits like to ask why Hill would go so strongly negative when it is hurting her so much.

The answer is simple. Her claimed 35 years experience, which necessarily includes her eight years as co-president to her husband Bill, has repeatedly taught her that there are no second place winners.

What matters, come Nov. 5, is who survives Nov. 4.

Either Clinton or Obama will face McCain in November. Clinton may bloody herself. Her hope is she bloodies Obama sufficiently to at least keep herself in the race, if not knock Obama out of it.

If she doesn’t do something to cut into Obama, or at least keep him from cutting into her, in the April 22 Pa. Primary, she doesn’t have a chance of competing in the Nov. Republican-Democrat run-off.

April 12, 2008

He mis-spoke — not!

Bill and Hillary Clinton are playing the eventime talking heads like fine guitars.

Bill says Hill’s getting old. Hill says, Shut up Bill; I’ll handle this. He tells the press she put him in his place.

Then he accuses the press of a double standard in going after his wife and not Barack Obama, even though it wasn’t Obama wh made up a story about being in a shooting scene that didn’t happen

Hill’s the one been talking the past several weeks about double standard. About being asked why she won’t drop out when she’s behind. about being given the first question in the debates.

The talking heads spend all night, and maybe more nights thereafter, wondering whether Bill’s losing it by suggesting Hill’s losing it.

And the same older, hard working, tired, but unforgetfull women on whom Hill counted to count her tears in New Hampshire, and who have been starting of late to leave her camp for that other guy, say, “You go, girl!” and rally to her in Pennsylvania.

Cynical? Maybe.

Bill and Hill don’t do stuff by accident. She may really cry, but it won’t be in front of cameras unless she wants it to be in front of cameras. And he won’t call her old unless it gives her a chance to cry out, “No I’m not!”

Of course, maybe they don’t really talk about everything, the way she said they do. Maybe Bill didn’t know his wife told that Bosnia story three times during the day, and not once during the night. Maybe he didn’t know she had pretty much gotten away with blowing it off.

Yuh!

And maybe she’s planning to drop out of the race on Chris Matthews’ show Sunday morning.

Don’t count on either scenario.

April 10, 2008

President reduces Iraq tour length

Filed under: Campaign 2008, History, Politics, Presidential campaign — Sam Emery @ 2:43 pm
Tags: , , , , ,

Pres. Dubya announced this morning soldiers’ tours in Iraq will be reduced from 15 months to 12 months.

What he forgot to tell reporters is the new tour lengths will apply the way new interest rates apply to credit cards — to new recruits only. Those already in Iraq will stay there indefinitely.

Which cheek was that, Mr. Crocker

Filed under: Campaign 2008, History, Politics, Sociology — Sam Emery @ 2:32 pm
Tags: , , , ,

“Why is it,” California Sen. Barbara Boxer asked, “after all we have given — 4,024 American lives, gone; more than half-a-trillion dollars spent; all this for the Iraqi people, but it’s the Iranian president who is greeted with kisses and flowers?

“He got a red-carpet treatment, and we are losing our sons and daughters every single day for the Iraqis to be free. It is irritating is my point.”

Ambassador Ryan Crocker dryly assured the senator from California that he believed that Dick Cheney had also gotten kissed on his visit to Iraq.

He neglected to mention Cheney was kissed on another cheek.

Butch McCain

Filed under: Campaign 2008, History, Politics — Sam Emery @ 4:59 am

There was a scene in Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid in which the Kid, played by Robert Redford, was invited by another poker player to leave the saloon.

“If he invites us to stay, then we’ll go,” Sundance said. “He’s got to invite us to stick around.”

John McCain uses the same convoluted logic when he says we may stay in Iraq 100 years, “as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.”

I think the senator missed the last part of that scene. If they stop shooting at us, we’re supposed to leave.

April 8, 2008

Don’t pull out now

Filed under: Campaign 2008, History, Politics, Presidential campaign — Sam Emery @ 2:23 pm

Sen. McCain insists we cannot leave Iraq now; the cost would be too great.

Which reminds me of poker players I’ve met who had no real idea what they were doing.

“I can’t get out now,” they say almost uniformly. “I’ve lost too much money.”

April 4, 2008

But he’s not a hero

John McCain is not a hero.

He might make a good president; that remains to be seen — or not.

But he’s just a schmuck like a thousands of other schmucks who went to Vietnam in the 1960s because that was what you did if your blood was read and your citizenship was U.S.

He went to Annapolis by his own admission, because it was expected of him to follow in his fathers path. He became a jet fighter pilot, like thousands of other jet fighter pilots, only he had the misfortune to be shot down.

He became a prisoner of war, and survived having the crap beat out of him and he came home to make barbecue, become a pretty well-known senator from Arizona, and now he’s trying to become President of the United States.

He’s done fairly well.

But he’s no hero.

That moniker belongs to soldiers who go into unfriendly fire to save their mates, who enter burning buildings to save their neighbors, who strive in spite of personal risk to accomplish things for their fellow humans.

He’s a heluva nice guy, by many accounts,

But he’s no hero.

Blog at WordPress.com.