What happened to the heroic, forward-looking rhetoric great leaders are supposed to provide in times of crisis?
FDR gave us “We have nothing to fear but fear itself.”
Churchill gave us “We shall fight on the beaches.”
George Bush cruises in with “This sucker could go down.”
Afternoon update: OUCH. Largest one-day drop on the DOW, ever.
I spent the evening watching Obama’s historic speech in a packed hotel room in downtown San Francisco. I got home to find close to 100 posts piled up in the “Politics” section of my feed reader. With that amount of text flying, it’s virtually impossible to find anything to say that’s truly original, and there are far better writers than me who will turn out much more lyrical paeans to Obama’s speech.
So I’ll just share one part of the speech, that made my jaw drop amidst all the cheers and even a couple of tears:
….part of what has been lost these past eight years can’t just be measured by lost wages or bigger trade deficits. What has also been lost is our sense of common purpose, and that’s what we have to restore.
We may not agree on abortion, but surely we can agree on reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies in this country.
The reality of gun ownership may be different for hunters in rural Ohio than they are for those plagued by gang violence in Cleveland, but don’t tell me we can’t uphold the Second Amendment while keeping AK-47s out of the hands of criminals.
I know there are differences on same-sex marriage, but surely we can agree that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters deserve to visit the person they love in a hospital and to live lives free of discrimination.
You know, passions may fly on immigration, but I don’t know anyone who benefits when a mother is separated from her infant child or an employer undercuts American wages by hiring illegal workers.
But this, too, is part of America’s promise, the promise of a democracy where we can find the strength and grace to bridge divides and unite in common effort.
Obama called out what are arguably the four most divisive issues in American domestic policy, and talked about trying to find common ground on them.
A less gutsy politician wouldn’t have done that. And in fact the speech could have been just fine without that section. But no, Obama went the extra mile and took all four of them head on.
Election Day is less than 70 days away. Bring it on. We’re ready.
San Francisco is a deeply flawed city in many ways (not to mention the whole voter initiative process, for that matter), but it also manages to come up with little gems like this. What started out as a joke is now going to be on the ballot this November:
San Francisco voters will be asked to decide whether to name a city sewage plant in honor of President Bush, after a satiric measure qualified for the November ballot Thursday.
[snip]
The measure, if passed, would rename the Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant the George W. Bush Sewage Plant.
It almost makes me wish I still lived in SF.
I was too tired to write about the end of the Democratic primaries, and Obama’s clinching of the nomination last night. A day later, though, I’ve had time to read the blogs (Steve Benen has a noteworthy post) and get a few thoughts down.
I am deeply proud of my party and of my country. Come what may — and Obama’s election is by no means certain — a black man is a major party candidate for President in this country. I’m not old enough to have any real memories of the civil rights movement. But I’ve seen and heard racism in action, and it’s ugly. That Obama could face it, and still win the nomination against some of the biggest names in politics, is amazing. Truly a milestone to feel good about.
Now, the hard part starts — the general election campaign. This is going to be good.
Not to make this a “pile on Hillary” kind of weekend, but a quote I saw a week or so ago has been nagging at me.
To feminist writer Linda Hirshman, Clinton’s likely defeat signals a harsh reality that future female candidates will need to consider.
“It shows how fragile the loyalty and commitment of women to a female candidate is. That’s a pretty scary thing,” says Hirshman. “She can count on the female electorate to divide badly and not be reliable.”
That’s a definition of feminism that I don’t understand. In act, it sounds a lot more like essentialism. As a woman who has spent a good portion of her life making her way in male-dominated fields – and as a Jew, to boot – I have an extreme distaste for any ideology that assumes that group characteristics are identical and unalterable.
And yet …. it would make me happy to see a woman elected President, I can’t lie. It would also make me happy to see a Jewish President, although frankly I think that’s even less likely to happen in my lifetime. Still, that doesn’t mean I’m going to put gender or religious characteristics ahead of everything else on the table. Especially when it comes to something as important as a Presidential election.
I’m one of the first generation of American women to be born and raised in a world where women actually had the option to escape the constraints they’d previously been limited to. Is that why I do not feel the pull of identity politics? I consider myself a feminist. Does being a “good” feminist mean that I must vote for a woman candidate solely because of her gender? I don’t think so, but clearly some other women do.
How did things get to this place? And more important, can we fix it?
Righteous outrage, that is. Keith Olbermann going off on Hillary Clinton today was a thing to behold:
He’s pissed, and with very good reason.