August 23, 2007

Brothers and Sisters

I don't like talking about presidential races in an odd numbered year anymore than I like talking about the upcoming playoffs when the preseason hasn't even started. But Barak Obama was on the Daily Show last night, and I started thinking about things. How often is that a good thing?

I find the race between Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton very intriguing. It really says a lot concerning the progress we have made as a country that we are finally willing to consider seriously a woman and a black man as president, especially after our stellar treatment of blacks and females throughout our country's history. Congratulations, United States. You've finally caught up with the rest of the world.

The crazy thing is, the whole democratic strategy seems to be revolving around experience. Namely, who has how much of what kind that will be useful in running the nation? Hillary Clinton ran for and won a Senate seat for the state of New York, and everyone knew what she was up to. She ran a very winnable race to gain experience to be taken seriously as a presidential candidate. Five years later, here we are saying that she's gained the experience necessary, as well as the Senate voting record, for us to visualize her as a serious presidential candidate.

Obama did the same thing in 2004. Well, not exactly the same thing, but still a similar strategy. This man came out of nowhere to challenge an unpopular incumbent for a very winnable Senate seat for Illinois, ostensibly to gain experience to be taken seriously as a legitimate presidential candidate in four years. Three years later, here we are. I don't know about his voting record, and I really don't care. He wasn't around to vote both for and against the war in Iraq, so there's nothing really to scrutinize there.

That's bullshit, though. Obama didn't join the Senate to gain experience to be a president. He ran to see if he could win something based on his "inexperience". It was a trial run for 2008, and nothing more. Ya wanna know why we haven't heard anything about Barak Obama's Senate record? No one cares. Obama made the point on the Daily Show that experience is what got us in this mess to begin with. "Experience" from two former Secretaries of Defense who insisted that we not go to war in Iraq 17 years ago told us to go in this time. Why? Because their "experience" told them that they could get away with it. And they did. Here we are.

He's right, too. If I had to, I would vote for Obama, just because I don't know a damn thing about him, but he presents himself well on television. And that's where this whole democracy thing is heading. Politically obscene as it was, the YouTube debates were a milestone in presidential campaign history. It's an outright acknowledgement that times are changing, and that they need to change. Great. Now what?

Who cares, as long as it's someone who doesn't have the experience to pull off the geopolitical crime of the century?

The way I see it, this race is coming down to Obama and Clinton. That is, if things remain the same as they are now (which they rarely do, admittedly). And that's the way it should be. We've been asking for decades if "America is ready" for a black or woman president (never both), so why not NOW? Let's do it, and get it over with. (If Fox can pull off a show about a bikini model becoming a "journalist", we may as well go all the way in both directions.)

Obama/Clinton is Suns/Spurs all over again - it's the de facto championship, long before we reach the Finals. Sure, there are "viable" candidates from the other conference, but we already know what we're getting from them - which hasn't been good in God knows how long.

Whoever wins the Democratic nomination between Obama and Clinton will most likely be the next president of the United States. But to me, the loser will be more telling than the winner. Obviously, we're ready for a this. But the loser of this race will tell us one very important thing about our society.

Who would we rather NOT run our country --a nigger or a bitch? And if neither wins, that will say alot about where we really are.

22 comments:

Jennifer5489 said...

I wouldn't congratulate the US yet. Neither will win. Skin color and/or sex makes no difference. The way I see it, they're all full of shit.

Jey said...

Full of shit, they are, but the illusion must continue. The question is, which version of the Matrix would we prefer the architect design for us.

Anonymous said...

and what will the loser tell us about society?? If neither wins, what does that tell us about society?? Just maybe it means that there is still a majority of citizens that care about what happens to this country--whether the rule of law is respected or whether we devolve into some grand liberal experiment. "If I had to," ??????? To say that you would vote for Obama just because you know nothing about him is moronic.

Jey said...

"there is still a majority of citizens that care about what happens to this country"

Which would explain the record low voter turnouts the last 5 years, yeah?

"To say that you would vote for Obama just because you know nothing about him is moronic."

Not when you consider that I made a clear case why that would be the case. We tried the devil we know. Now it's time to try the devil we don't know.

Everything in the world operates under a system of repeating patterns. EVERYTHING cycles. I am perfectly willing to go with my gut and vote for someone that has no idea what it takes to be a president because the people who have supposedly known what it takes over the last 40 years have succeeded in running this country into the ground.

Time to close your eyes and pick a card...any card.

Jey said...

Fair warning...I got my online start by debating politics. Anytime anyone wants to throw down, I will be here. I'm that good. >: )

Anonymous said...

"I'm that good." In whose opinion? Isn't this blog/message board just a place for you to tell everyone how smart you are???

Jey said...

In my opinion, of course.

"Isn't this blog/message board just a place for you to tell everyone how smart you are???"

No. It's a place for me to talk about the Suns and other things. The title of the blog says as much. If people make the inference regarding my intelligence, great. If not, then you're either completely missing the point, or you're just not willing to give me credit for it. Doesn't bother me, either way, really. I'm just happy to see people get riled over little things.

The best part -- you have no clue as to my political philosophies. This was a cultural piece, not political.

Anonymous said...

IMHO culture and politics are interrelated. I'll bet you are a liberal.

Jey said...

They are interrelated, which is why I did a cultural commentary through a political lens.

Define liberal, and I'll tell you whether or not it's an accurate description of my philosophies.

Jey said...

I'll put it this way...

It isn't a statement on political beliefs or ideas. It's a statement on where our culture stands right now, which, I believe, is about forty years behind where it should be (the Kennedy assassinations being coincidental to the lag, not the direct cause.)

Anonymous said...

Anonymous, I take it from your tone and decrying our impending "devol[ution] into some grant liberal experiment" as an indicator that you're more of the conservative bent. You also mentioned something about "the rule of law" in your first post. I may be misreading your post, but are you actually implying that conservatives are better for the rule of law than liberals? Certainly not those in the Bush mold, at least for the sake of preserving out constitutional democracy.

Anonymous said...

"There is no such thing as a "constitutional" democracy in the United States and if there were, elected representatives would conduct referendums for the general public instead of voting on behalf of their constituents. A "democracy" is "mob-rule" where the majority decide all issues for the country, typically by voting in national or provincial/state referendums on each important issue. A constitutional "republic" is actually what this Wikipedia entry is describing.

We in the United States enjoy a constitutional republic where all minorities have a say in their government. Though "democratic" in nature, there is a huge difference between the words democracy and democratic. One is a noun used to describe a majority-rule form of government such as that found in Canada and Great Britain. The other describes the much fairer republican form of government we in the United States enjoy.

A republic and a democracy cannot coexist"
courtesy of Wikipedia

Jey said...

Citation of wikipedia is automatic discreditation, I don't care how "accurate" a definition may be on it. One word changed by one person can change the meaning f that definition entirely, therefore is useless when constructing a valid argiment.

Whether it's a democaracy or republic is well beside the point, since it doesn't matter whether it a representative democracy (republic) or "real" democracy. It's just one extra step in the voting process. It doesn't matter whether or not the general populous or representative officials are making the stupid decisions.

Anonymous said...

populace

Jey said...

My point exactly. Now that you have won this argument by correcting my spelling error, would you like to work on the middle east by telling Israel that it SHOULD be Izree-ull?

Wow. David and I go through all that, and in typical "anonymous" fashion (seriously, who's views are so shallow and insubstantiable as to preclude them from putting their name out there?), and that's all you have to say?

I'm as pedantic as the next guy when it comes to crap like that, but I don't use it in a damn debate. Why? Because I have a working intelligence that tells me that it is completely irelevint to do so.

Fucking Texans. Is there anything they CAN'T fuck up?

Jey said...

I don't know why I'm so pissed off about that. Must be those stupid expectations I still hold for people. As cynical as I am, I can't help but give other human beings credit for intelligence, despite their defaulted loan history.

Then again, nothing says "Jey is the MAN" like a reply so off base and irrelevant after I've taken the kid to school. Damn, I'm a bad ass.

Jennifer5489 said...

Which bullshitter is better? I have no idea, but that was some funny shit you said in regards to 'populous'. Thanks for making me laugh, again.

Jey said...

Anytime, loyal Jennifer. : )

JSun said...

This discussion (and your last post) is the strongest evidence to confirm my theory that Neil Postman is the greatest soothsayer and psychic the world has ever seen. To hell with Nostradamus and the Casey guy (is that his name? the guy from the early 20th century who "found" Atlantis?).

He hit both the Anchorwoman and Bill Clinton right on the head in the mid/early 80s. Based on his theories, I'd have to go with Obama winning. I've just resigned myself to it, good or bad.

The important question for this election is whether any politicians will see fit to stop all the B.S. work they do to swoop down and do an investigation or something into David Stern like they did for baseball or are goig to do with the WWE. Or, passing a law to make sure that everyone gets HDTV signals. That's the important stuff in the world.

Jey said...

Edgar Cayse was his name.

This Postman character, have you a good link, or should I just google? You have piqued an interest of mine.

I just hope the next administration is as entertaining as the current one.

JSun said...

I'm not so sure how to link in the comments section. It's called "Amusing Ourselves to Death" by Neil Postman and was originally published in 1985 or 1986, I think.

Here's a long link at Amazon. cut-and-paste away.

http://www.amazon.com/Amusing-Ourselves-Death-Discourse-Business/dp/014303653X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-1165368-5495126?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1188975248&sr=1-1

Dallin Crump said...

Meh. I don't think either will win. I think most Americans are still opposed to socialism.