I wish everyone would stop talking about making Hillary Clinton the Democratic Vice-Presidential nominee. This dream ticket would be a nightmare. And we might wake up to find John McCain in the White House.
Ever since she realized Barack was a real threat to her preordained Presidency, Hillary has argued that he is too inexperienced to be the President. Now he’s too elite, not a down-homer like Hillary. In her recent remarks, she also implied that he just might be too black to win votes from hardworking white folks. She firmly believes she would be the better President and says so at every opportunity.
On his end, Obama has argued that it is time to turn the page in our divisive politics, and many of his supporters undoubtedly agree. They see Hillary as part of the politics of a fading era. Her combative style and low road campaigning go against everything Obama says he stands for.
The argument goes that these primary spats can be smoothed over. I’m not sure that’s true in this case, but let’s say for the sake of argument that Hillary and Barack can bury the hatchet. There’s still a problem. The so-called dream ticket would provide endless fodder for the nonstop “gotcha!” game that has consumed media coverage of the Presidential race (along with math problems involving such oddities as half of a super-delegate). This destructive distraction would far outweigh any benefit to be gained by teaming up in hopes of uniting a divided party.
It will be enough trouble getting the news media on track to focus on issues when there are so many other fun topics, like wayward pastors and Weathermen. We have the Republicans chomping at the bit to go after an official Democratic nominee. We’ve had Presidential debates where virtually every question was designed to trip up the candidate rather than elicit actual policy positions. The last thing the Democrats need is to provide more ammunition for those who would rather we miss the forest (tragically unnecessary and costly war, economy headed toward recession, diminishing infrastructure and safety net, eroding civil rights and unchecked executive power) for the trees (funny middle names, lapel pins, gotcha again!).
“Senator Clinton, you said Senator Obama wasn’t ready to be President, right up until last week. What changed your mind?”
“Senator Obama, who will be running the country on Day 1 – you or Senator Clinton?”
“”Senator Clinton, considering your view that you are the more experienced candidate, will you be acting as a Vice-President in the Cheney mold?”
“Senator Obama, you’ve been sharply critical of the Clinton campaign method. Do you feel different about that now that it’s no longer directed at you?”
And so on. The more the relationship is parsed, the less time will be spent defining the differences between the Democratic nominee and John McCain. The less we will focus on what path our nation should take at this critical moment in its history to regain our footing at home and our standing in the international community.
Then there’s Bill Clinton. He’s been just as divisive as Hillary in this primary campaign. And everyone agrees that it would be beyond awkward to have the former President hanging around the White House as the Second Spouse. Unfortunately for Hillary, with the Clintons it’s still 2-for-1, and that’s not always a good thing.
There’s no bright side. Hillary should not be the Vice-Presidential nominee. What she should do is figure out how she can best deliver her supporters to Obama for the general election, instead of continuing to insist that he’ll never get them. Here’s the dream we desperately need to come true – Hillary Clinton finally being a team player for the Democrats in this election.
Winning in November is not going to be a cakewalk. The Democrats can’t afford the distractions that would come with putting Hillary on the ticket. Whatever the exit strategy is for Hillary, it should not be the Vice-Presidency.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Mother's Day in the Life
I wrote this essay a couple of years ago when both my boys were in preschool. It reminds of that time, and it reminds me to be present for my kids when they ask me to play.
This Mothers’ Day, I thought about whether I am the mother I want to be. Ideally, I’d like to spend more time with my kids, maybe stay home with them and do something crafty. Not crazy crafty, like in the back of the parenting magazines, where you turn their sandwiches into sea creatures or wrap up the Kleenex boxes in aluminum foil. But I am pretty good with the basic toilet paper tube, for example. I’ve made a dollhouse-sized mailbox with letters and even a little potty, when that was a major matter of interest. My Play-Doh talents have been lying dormant since my older son stopped making requests like, “Mommy, make a radio!” and started making his own stuff. I’d love to return to these domestic artistic pursuits with my boys full time. I have stay-at-home mom envy.
It occurs to me, though, that if I stopped working outside of the home, we might find ourselves living outside the home too, because my paycheck helps pay the mortgage. Or at least, we’d be living less comfortably, with the utilities turned off.
And of course, there’s that open secret among moms that being with the kids all day can drive you completely insane. This is why I have so much respect for my stay-at-home mom friends. I can go to my office and relax. Sure, I have to work, but most days nobody’s going to spill anything. It’s harder for moms at home to get a break from the non-stop demands of parenting.
When I think about mothering, I think of my own mother. She played both roles at different times: stay-at-home and working mom. My mother was home until I was about eight years old. When she told me that once, it surprised me, because I always remember her working. But seeing my mom with my boys now that she’s retired, I remember. I understand why I am so intrigued by the artistic possibilities of the toilet paper tube. She makes them shoebox guitars or a doll outfit out of an old sock. Now I realize that she did this when my brother and I were kids, and that’s why I know how to do it. It’s an act of love to make something out of whatever you have for a little kid, and it teaches that child to be creative and innovative too.
In the years in between having small children and her retirement last June, my mother worked. And worked and worked. Her job was her identity in a lot of ways, and it took most of her time. She was late picking us up from our music lessons (but her working probably paid for those lessons). She missed my high school graduation because she was traveling. But she was there for family dinner, and our concerts, and to help with our math homework. She worked hard to help support us, and she worked harder than she had to because she thrived on it. With parenting, your kids absorb it all. Lessons are taught and learned, consciously or not.
So I wonder: am I the mother I want to be? My kids are little (4 and almost 2) and I work full-time. I don’t spend as much time with them as I would like. I take them to all-day preschool when they don’t want to go. I take them to their grandparents’ house where they love to be, but still ask me to “stay here, Mommy. Don’t go to work.” I miss dinner twice a week when I’m teaching night classes. Yet, I am with them every morning for breakfast and I am home for family dinner on non-teaching nights. Sometimes, I can even chaperone the field trip or spend a weekday morning with the kids. I still find time to make something out of whatever I have, for them to play with.
When my boys pretend they’re going to work, they take keys and a purse with them to the door. Most of their friends’ moms work, and many of the dads drive to preschool. Daddy makes dinner and vacuums the house. This has to be part of what they’re absorbing from childhood – what they might not remember learning, but will have learned nonetheless, like the toilet paper tube and the Play-Doh.
But that’s the thing about working moms and stay-at-home moms (and dads, too) -- we’re all making something for our kids out of whatever we have, as an act of love. We’re doing the best we can, loving our children and working hard for them. We’re all looking to hold on to ourselves while we do our best by our kids. We’re teaching our children how to be the parents that they will someday want to be.
This Mothers’ Day, I thought about whether I am the mother I want to be. Ideally, I’d like to spend more time with my kids, maybe stay home with them and do something crafty. Not crazy crafty, like in the back of the parenting magazines, where you turn their sandwiches into sea creatures or wrap up the Kleenex boxes in aluminum foil. But I am pretty good with the basic toilet paper tube, for example. I’ve made a dollhouse-sized mailbox with letters and even a little potty, when that was a major matter of interest. My Play-Doh talents have been lying dormant since my older son stopped making requests like, “Mommy, make a radio!” and started making his own stuff. I’d love to return to these domestic artistic pursuits with my boys full time. I have stay-at-home mom envy.
It occurs to me, though, that if I stopped working outside of the home, we might find ourselves living outside the home too, because my paycheck helps pay the mortgage. Or at least, we’d be living less comfortably, with the utilities turned off.
And of course, there’s that open secret among moms that being with the kids all day can drive you completely insane. This is why I have so much respect for my stay-at-home mom friends. I can go to my office and relax. Sure, I have to work, but most days nobody’s going to spill anything. It’s harder for moms at home to get a break from the non-stop demands of parenting.
When I think about mothering, I think of my own mother. She played both roles at different times: stay-at-home and working mom. My mother was home until I was about eight years old. When she told me that once, it surprised me, because I always remember her working. But seeing my mom with my boys now that she’s retired, I remember. I understand why I am so intrigued by the artistic possibilities of the toilet paper tube. She makes them shoebox guitars or a doll outfit out of an old sock. Now I realize that she did this when my brother and I were kids, and that’s why I know how to do it. It’s an act of love to make something out of whatever you have for a little kid, and it teaches that child to be creative and innovative too.
In the years in between having small children and her retirement last June, my mother worked. And worked and worked. Her job was her identity in a lot of ways, and it took most of her time. She was late picking us up from our music lessons (but her working probably paid for those lessons). She missed my high school graduation because she was traveling. But she was there for family dinner, and our concerts, and to help with our math homework. She worked hard to help support us, and she worked harder than she had to because she thrived on it. With parenting, your kids absorb it all. Lessons are taught and learned, consciously or not.
So I wonder: am I the mother I want to be? My kids are little (4 and almost 2) and I work full-time. I don’t spend as much time with them as I would like. I take them to all-day preschool when they don’t want to go. I take them to their grandparents’ house where they love to be, but still ask me to “stay here, Mommy. Don’t go to work.” I miss dinner twice a week when I’m teaching night classes. Yet, I am with them every morning for breakfast and I am home for family dinner on non-teaching nights. Sometimes, I can even chaperone the field trip or spend a weekday morning with the kids. I still find time to make something out of whatever I have, for them to play with.
When my boys pretend they’re going to work, they take keys and a purse with them to the door. Most of their friends’ moms work, and many of the dads drive to preschool. Daddy makes dinner and vacuums the house. This has to be part of what they’re absorbing from childhood – what they might not remember learning, but will have learned nonetheless, like the toilet paper tube and the Play-Doh.
But that’s the thing about working moms and stay-at-home moms (and dads, too) -- we’re all making something for our kids out of whatever we have, as an act of love. We’re doing the best we can, loving our children and working hard for them. We’re all looking to hold on to ourselves while we do our best by our kids. We’re teaching our children how to be the parents that they will someday want to be.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Gunning for the Dumb Vote
Have you seen the movie “Idiocracy”? In this satiric look at America’s future, a soldier selected for his averageness and a prostitute trying to escape her pimp are frozen in an army experiment, forgotten, and emerge 500 years later, when the United States has devolved into a society dominated by sex, violence, and crass corporate commercialism. Everyone in the future is gravely stupid as a result of the intelligentsia having fewer and fewer children for generations, while the dumb people had more and more kids. The two average folks from the past are now the smartest people in the world. The President of this future America is a professional wrestler, like the ones on WWE.
That’s right, the WWE where you recently saw our current Presidential candidates posturing for votes. Sometimes I worry that the future is now.
I don’t mean to sound like another Ivy League-educated elitist, but doesn’t it seem like the Presidential campaign keeps getting dumber and dumber? Here’s Hillary, throwing back whiskey and beer, talking about huntin’, that is when she isn’t dodging sniper fire in her personal Rambo movie. There’s Hillary threatening to “totally obliterate” Iran, leading Iran to complain to the U.N. about the threat from She-who-would-be-President-or-else. (You can almost hear John McCain singing that old ditty of his, “Bomb, bomb Iran” in the background.)
Hillary leads among Democratic voters who have a high school education or less, as well as among hunters, gun owners, and bowlers. Barack Obama is portrayed by the Clinton campaign and others as an Ivy League-educated elitist. At the same time, it’s hinted, Obama just might be an angry racist black man or Muslim – I mean, as far as we know. Wait, it’s been a full five minutes since someone mentioned crazy Jeremiah Wright – that’s far too long!
Hillary had a nice privileged upbringing and an Ivy League education. Like George W. Bush, she’s trying to portray herself as the candidate we’d like to have a beer (or a near beer) with. President Bush was elected on that basis – Gore and Kerry were too intellectual, too stiff, too “French” – and the results have been just peachy.
Not to say that Hillary isn’t smart. Her wonky command of policy detail is well documented. She’s also clever like a fox, as her sound bites and those of Fox News on Barack become harder and harder to distinguish. She’s not trying to play dumb (that would be career suicide for a woman politician); she’s just gunning for the dumb vote.
The media is interested in the dumb vote too - critical thinking is overrated when it comes to ratings. Who wants to hear about Jena, Louisiana when we can hear about Jamie Lynn Spears in Louisiana? Who wants to hear the candidates answer substantive debate questions about United States policy and the direction of the nation, when we can keep playing an endlessly fascinating game of gotcha?
On the election front, Hillary wouldn’t have it any other way. To paraphrase one of the slogans from her boomer ‘60’s: if it works for her, do it.
Barack Obama doesn’t want to play the same old game. He tried to elevate the conversation from the very start of his campaign, and for a while, it seemed like it might work. But now even he has been put on the defensive and forced into the dumb and dumber trenches. His own missteps like Bittergate haven’t helped nor has the media-hungry Reverend Wright. It’s a shame.
Barack Obama is a member of an elite, not because of his circumstances (he and Michelle only recently paid off their school loans, and are not part of any Presidential dynasty), but because he is asking the American people to rise above all the idiocy. That’s a rare and risky position to take, but he knows nothing will change until we do. Yet, with the media and his Democratic rival hurtling headfirst into the idiotic future, where is the hope? Barack needs to get his groove back and get back on message and above the fray. America needs to listen and follow him out of the muck. We can’t be so dumb as to repeat the same political nonsense over and over again, and expect a different result.
That’s right, the WWE where you recently saw our current Presidential candidates posturing for votes. Sometimes I worry that the future is now.
I don’t mean to sound like another Ivy League-educated elitist, but doesn’t it seem like the Presidential campaign keeps getting dumber and dumber? Here’s Hillary, throwing back whiskey and beer, talking about huntin’, that is when she isn’t dodging sniper fire in her personal Rambo movie. There’s Hillary threatening to “totally obliterate” Iran, leading Iran to complain to the U.N. about the threat from She-who-would-be-President-or-else. (You can almost hear John McCain singing that old ditty of his, “Bomb, bomb Iran” in the background.)
Hillary leads among Democratic voters who have a high school education or less, as well as among hunters, gun owners, and bowlers. Barack Obama is portrayed by the Clinton campaign and others as an Ivy League-educated elitist. At the same time, it’s hinted, Obama just might be an angry racist black man or Muslim – I mean, as far as we know. Wait, it’s been a full five minutes since someone mentioned crazy Jeremiah Wright – that’s far too long!
Hillary had a nice privileged upbringing and an Ivy League education. Like George W. Bush, she’s trying to portray herself as the candidate we’d like to have a beer (or a near beer) with. President Bush was elected on that basis – Gore and Kerry were too intellectual, too stiff, too “French” – and the results have been just peachy.
Not to say that Hillary isn’t smart. Her wonky command of policy detail is well documented. She’s also clever like a fox, as her sound bites and those of Fox News on Barack become harder and harder to distinguish. She’s not trying to play dumb (that would be career suicide for a woman politician); she’s just gunning for the dumb vote.
The media is interested in the dumb vote too - critical thinking is overrated when it comes to ratings. Who wants to hear about Jena, Louisiana when we can hear about Jamie Lynn Spears in Louisiana? Who wants to hear the candidates answer substantive debate questions about United States policy and the direction of the nation, when we can keep playing an endlessly fascinating game of gotcha?
On the election front, Hillary wouldn’t have it any other way. To paraphrase one of the slogans from her boomer ‘60’s: if it works for her, do it.
Barack Obama doesn’t want to play the same old game. He tried to elevate the conversation from the very start of his campaign, and for a while, it seemed like it might work. But now even he has been put on the defensive and forced into the dumb and dumber trenches. His own missteps like Bittergate haven’t helped nor has the media-hungry Reverend Wright. It’s a shame.
Barack Obama is a member of an elite, not because of his circumstances (he and Michelle only recently paid off their school loans, and are not part of any Presidential dynasty), but because he is asking the American people to rise above all the idiocy. That’s a rare and risky position to take, but he knows nothing will change until we do. Yet, with the media and his Democratic rival hurtling headfirst into the idiotic future, where is the hope? Barack needs to get his groove back and get back on message and above the fray. America needs to listen and follow him out of the muck. We can’t be so dumb as to repeat the same political nonsense over and over again, and expect a different result.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
