Come On Bitches, Play Nice!
Hillary and Obama aren't speaking.
Apparently, they came within a foot of each other (which in itself, must have been a frightening thing for onlookers to behold) at last night's State of the Union Address. Even Ted Kennedy, who had endorsed Obama, reached out to shake Hillary's hand, and from the picture accompanying this article, she seemed happy to see him.
But there ain't enough bones left in the jar for the top two dogs to share.
This race will tear the Democrats apart. And that mustn't happen. I've heard arguments that the palpable hostility between Clinton and Obama is a sign of how passionate and committed they both are, how badly they want it and how deeply they feel, and that to stay more low-key (like Edwards) is a "cop-out," a sign of dispassion and apathy, but I'm sorry, I can't buy into that.
Surely, the people at the front of this race must realize how much is at stake here--what big changes we can make if we have the right leader, the limitless achievements that can we can bring about by cooperating. It's so much bigger, even, than either of them individually. If they were really so "passionate" about change (as they purport to be), then they should be able to put their megalomania aside for the time it takes to win this thing.
If they even can't do that, is there any reason why we should have confidence in either one of them?
Apparently, they came within a foot of each other (which in itself, must have been a frightening thing for onlookers to behold) at last night's State of the Union Address. Even Ted Kennedy, who had endorsed Obama, reached out to shake Hillary's hand, and from the picture accompanying this article, she seemed happy to see him.
But there ain't enough bones left in the jar for the top two dogs to share.
This race will tear the Democrats apart. And that mustn't happen. I've heard arguments that the palpable hostility between Clinton and Obama is a sign of how passionate and committed they both are, how badly they want it and how deeply they feel, and that to stay more low-key (like Edwards) is a "cop-out," a sign of dispassion and apathy, but I'm sorry, I can't buy into that.
Surely, the people at the front of this race must realize how much is at stake here--what big changes we can make if we have the right leader, the limitless achievements that can we can bring about by cooperating. It's so much bigger, even, than either of them individually. If they were really so "passionate" about change (as they purport to be), then they should be able to put their megalomania aside for the time it takes to win this thing.
If they even can't do that, is there any reason why we should have confidence in either one of them?
posted by Aaron at 11:03 AM
10 Comments:
I have to disagree. This is media spin-spin-spin only. It's been the media dogging-the-wag since day one.
Imagine the headlines if they actually had shaken hands. The media would have spun it into some further frenzy.
Ah, but not all of it is spin-spin: Bill's embarrassing tirades were not the product of media hype. And Hillary's crying thing, too: this is a woman who faced down Newt Gingrich every day for 8 years--she's not exactly pitiful. So in those two instances, I think they (at the very least) aided and abetted the media in their portrayal. Obama's been careful to have all the right answers, all the time, which has made him suspect in my opinion (just because I don't believe in "all things to all people"), although I know that's how the game has to be played.
Shaking hands I don't think would cause much of a furor--other candidates have done it. But these two have really gone after each other big time on this one, maybe because there's so much pressure. I really hope they can pull their thumbs out, because one of them is going to get the nomination, and I really hope whichever it is is smart enough to choose the other as their running mate.
Eeeh, they'll be playing nice soon enough. They're just feeling a little raw right now. It won't be long before it's Clinton/Obama, Obama/Clinton in a few weeks.
Sarah
Good. Then we can show McCain/Romney, McCain/Huckabee, McCain/Bryant, or Romney/Phelps some serious ass-whuppin'!
I am hoping that Hillary will choose our wonderful, amazing, best governor we ever had, Evan Bayh as her running mate. To choose Obama would double those who are bigots, both those who would never vote for a black and those who would never vote for a woman and believe me their numbers are legion. Ed
I'm sure the number of bigots who won't vote for a black or a woman ARE legion. But since it's clearly going to be one or the other, why not have two brilliant people on one ticket?
If the "Hee-Haw" extras can't handle it, nuts to 'em.
As I said, spin-spin-spin.
As long as they play nice once the candidate is announced, I'll be happier than a kitten with tuna-flavored yarn...
Some graciousness on both their parts would be nice, if only to not polarize the Dems. But I guess that's what each other feels they need: the Dems to CHOOSE. But the message that I'm getting from their behavior toward each other is that they aren't so much concerned with change as in getting the nomination...
Exactly...that's what's worried me so much about this perceived immaturity, even if it IS media-spin. If so, STOP GIVING THE MEDIA SO MUCH AMMO, GUYS!! There are plenty of things they ARE doing that CANNOT be put down to spin, that they could avoid doing, for the sake of Democratic unity.
That said, as soon as the media sees one crease in either brow, they rush off to their Murdoch-owned word processors and bang out a story about the "Democrats being on the rocks." Whatevs.)
Post a Comment
<< Home