I don't make predictions often or lightly because there are just too many unpredictables, especially in politics, but I'm getting a strong sense of where things are going in the US presidential election.
CNN has become a gossip station, focusing on the day-to-day scraps of information
- today's poll data,
- snippets of candidates talking about each other, ignoring what they say on the issues,
- goading partisans to make nasty comments about the other candidate, etc.
- Can Hillary get enough votes to stop Obama?
- with story after story on how she might get them through primaries, super delegates, and even enticing those 'pledged' to Obama
- Will dragging out the Democratic primary cost them the election in November?
- Why is McCain competitive when so many people think the US is going in the wrong direction?
Well, here's my take on things.
I was there for the excitement of the Democratic caucus in Anchorage. It was palpable. People were excited about politics like they haven't been for decades.
And there is no mistake that the people of Thailand here are excited about the possibility of Obama as president. My sense is the Thai perception is echoed around the world. Just Obama's election would totally change the rest of the world's image of the USA.
Obama's response about his pastor was statesmanlike.
- The content was intellectually solid - putting into words a new understanding of race relations that the American public was ready to hear,
- The language and images spoked directly to everyone
- The delivery sounded honest and authentic
What about McCain?
The Republican primary was packed with candidates who fell by the wayside quickly. McCain was the front runner only at the very end so was never really the target. At the end Huckabee gracefully dropped out compared to Clinton's clinging. (And she has every right, and I don't necessarily buy the media's story that this will hurt the Democrats in the end.) McCain hasn't been under any serious pressure or probing spotlights the way the Democratic candidates have been.
When that happens, his numbers will drop quickly. Reading between the lines, it sounds like
- he's testy,
- he talks off the cuff without thinking,
- his ideas don't seem to be based on any comprehensive world view. Instead they seem to be idiosyncratically based on his emotional reactions to his experiences and so they are inconsistent and unpredictable.
- his party's establishment has no enthusiasm for him.
In summary, McCain has an interesting past. Obama has an interesting future.
"shrill"? Not you, too. - M
ReplyDeleteSee "Sexist Language in Media Coverage of Hillary Clinton" By Ashleigh Crowther, posted December 12, 2007
http://mediacrit.wetpaint.com/page/Sexist+Language+in+Media+Coverage+of+Hillary+Clinton?t=anon
M, I thought about whether I should use the word or not. Whether I'd use it with a man or not, or if I'd use another word. Then I decided what I heard out of Clinton's mouth was 'shrill.' I was using it in the sense of dictionary.reference.com's fourth entry:
ReplyDelete4. betraying some strong emotion or attitude in an exaggerated amount, as antagonism or defensiveness.
I've watched things since the before the rise of the women's movement in the 60s/70s (yes I know there was an earlier one too) and have watched things go from women are no different from men to a realization that, yes, in some significant ways women are different from men.
I think our language reflects that - sometimes in ways that just reflect the natural differences (ie pregnant, mother), sometimes in ways that maintain artificial differences (ie. all the words that end in -man). The first meaning of shrill is high pitched. I suspect that's attached to women more than men because women's voices, on average, are higher pitched than men's.
I assume this is MGA commenting and so I know you know I know all this. BTW, I searched for shrill in the article you linked to but it came up with nothing.