Why is it assumed that if you are a woman the only criteria necessary for picking a candidate is gender? I am the “demographic” that is supposedly squarely in Hillary Clintons corner and am here to report I am sick of her tactics.
Maybe I would believe in her even though she flip-flops on issues. Maybe I would forgive an appalling financial report on how she managed to burn through $130 million (and lose all those races). Perhaps I would b-list my concern over reports that the special interest groups in Washington, who “own her” but are maxed out on their contributions, are devising (illegal?) ways to continue funding her campaign so they protect “the status-quo” in Washington.
Maybe, but I cannot swallow her latest strategy of “slinging mud” to see if anything will stick. The image of her pointing and shaking, taking offence at very same advertising tactic her campaign has used, made me cringe.
I began to wonder if what she is saying even matters so I watched last nights debate without sound, focusing on body language only. She gives off very hostile, sarcastic vibe. She rolls her eyes and makes faces. There is nothing relatable about this woman.
If there is a positive, relatable ‘image” of a powerful woman, one that is universally acceptable, it is one of poise. Did Clintons inability to maintain poised under pressure tank her campaign? Is it possible that whatever she may be saying doesn’t matter because people feel uncomfortable? Clearly, they do. Why doesn’t she get this? Why didn't the highly paid (10 million!) Howard Wolfson tell her? This is PSYC 101 stuff.
Overnight, the Obama campaign exceeded one million donations. No matter where you stand, you can’t deny this is a great accomplishment. On the surface, who would have thought he would succeed? This has been an amazing experience for many people, he has rallied the masses, convinced many of us that we do matter, that we can have a role and make a difference.
GW has been the worst US president in memory and there are SO MANY things we need to fix. Isn’t it wonderful to know that people are open to change, that they do care. I think it is time for the nay-sayers to consider that the Obama strategy has worked, that right now, he is exactly what we need.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Hi Jean,
Did you see the article in the Wall Street Journal's OpinionJournal web site comparing Obama to Ronald Reagan?
Barack Obama is unlike any recent Democratic candidate -- not on issues -- but because he isn't a pessimist. Obama's supporters have been heard to chant "USA, USA!" at rallies. People are inspired and happy when they attend his events.
While I might not agree with some of his positions and would rather have McCain win, I am glad that the regular rank and file Democrats are taking back their party from the sour-faced folks who never seem to ever have a fun time.
The old saying about sugar being more attractive than vinegar is the reason why Obama is doing so well.
People need to have and Barack Obama has figured out how to tap into that human need.
The "doom and gloom" rhetoric of past Democratic candidates don't inspire and instead leads to loses. "Hating Bush" is wasted energy.
Barack Obama is wise to break free from the politics of partisan division and despair.
And gosh do we need positive. Did you see the SNL skit?
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/election08/77752/
It is hard not to support the “the sisterhood” but I do believe that a woman can be elected President. Woman leaders, like Margaret Thatcher, Madeleine Albright, and Sandra Day O’Connor are all very poised. I think if Hillary had remained poised, played fair and never gotten ruffled, the results would have been different.
Jean, you know I disagree, but I do like your enthusiasm for B. Hussein Obama!
I for one would prefer Hillary on your side, since I think she'll be easier for John McCain to beat
Post a Comment