BlogHer - If I'm neither Team Hillary nor Team Barack- can I still blog about politics? - Comments

Back when the Democractic

earlgreyrooibos — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:25:29 -0500

Back when the Democractic race was still contested, I had no interest in supporting either Obama nor Clinton, but nor was I a McCain supporter. I saw each candidate as the "same old same old," and literally did not care which Democrat won the nomination. I guess I'm jaded, but to me, whoever wins, it will just be politics as usual.

In the parking lot

Jill Miller Zimon — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 21:27:21 -0500

Just today I was having a conversation with a very dedicated Clinton supporter (I am in that neither team category, imo though I did vote for Clinton) and we both were outraged that anyone would ever be pushed to the point where he or she felt that they had to speak out as Obama has on the person who married them and baptized his or her kids. There is just something horribly wrong with us that we think that that is necessary or important or i don't know what. I'm not saying that Obama doesn't own that feeling, of wanting to denounce, but why isn't this private?

I apologize for not being able to be 100% articulate on just how much this upsets me - the reason - I can't really pinpoint it. But I feel it - it just is not proper.

I don't know - does anyone else feel that way? And frankly it's part of what keeps me from being able to commit to either candidate at this stage. I really am unhappy about feeling that way. But I take responsibility for it. I've learned a lot this year - and no doubt have a hell of lot more to learn.

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

No logic intended.

Catherine Morgan — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:32:34 -0500

Hi Kim. No logic intended...I was just taken back by what I heard on Lou Dobbs, and I was trying to figure it out.

:-)

Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
CatherineBlogs, The Political Voices of Women, Care2 Election Blog

I don't follow your logic, Catherine

Kim Pearson — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:20:13 -0500

Where did Obama say that the 2002 campaign was for anything other than the state senate?

I covered some of Obama's US Senate campaign. He ended up virtually unopposed, but he started out with several better financed opponents. As for his 2002 State Senate race, when you consider that it came after his humiliating run for a congressional seat in 2000, it's not implausible that the 2002 re-election bid would have been a challenge. This article has more details about that period of his career.

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor|Professor Kim|

Another thing...

Catherine Morgan — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 20:01:19 -0500

Hi Liz. I heard something on CNN a little while ago, that I don't
believe I had heard until today (although it's apparently common
knowledge).

I knew Obama was only a Senator for one year before
he decided to run for President (which always seemed a little odd to
me). But the guest on Lou Dobbs, quickly mentioned how Obama ran
virtually unopposed for that Senate seat, even having a few people that
wanted to run against him disqualified under technicalities??? Here is the clip...

So I
did a little digging, and found some interesting stuff..

A little history

and also this post, from a debate between Clinton and Obama.

From Corrente

Get a load of this from the debate:

SEN. CLINTON: Well, I have put forth my extensive experience in foreign
policy, you know, helping to support the peace process in Northern
Ireland, negotiating to open borders so that refugees fleeing ethnic
cleansing would be safe, going to Beijing and standing up for women’s
rights as human rights and so much else. And every time the question
about qualifications and credentials for commander in chief are raised,
. He’s to be commended for having given the speech. Many people gave speeches against the war then, and the fair comparison is he didn’t have responsibility, he didn’t have to vote;
by 2004 he was saying that he basically agreed with the way George Bush
was conducting the war. And when he came to the Senate, he and I have
voted exactly the same. We have voted for the money to fund the war
until relatively recently. So the fair comparison was when we both had
responsibility, when it wasn’t just a speech but it was actually
action, where is the difference? Where is the comparison that would in
some way give a real credibility to the speech that he gave against the
war?

Obama’s response:

SEN. OBAMA: Let me just follow up. My objections to the war in Iraq were simply — not simply a speech. I was in the midst of a campaign. It was a high-stakes campaign. I was one of the most vocal opponents of the war, and I was very specific as to why.

Not so. In 2002, Obama ran for State Senator. Not United States Senator (here). And he didn’t declare for U.S. Senate until January, 2003.

Hillary says Obama “didn’t have responsibility,” and she’s right.
Obama is not only wrong on the facts (State vs. United States) but
wrong to claim that he had responsibility when he didn’t.

Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
CatherineBlogs, The Political Voices of Women, Care2 Election Blog

By the way, Morra, I'm a little confused

Kim Pearson — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:48:51 -0500

I wonder why you put the initial question the way you did? Do you really think that anyone who hasn't had your experience is an "apologist" for Obama, or were you just being provocative?

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor|Professor Kim|

Obama's war opposition

Maria Niles — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 19:32:00 -0500

That Obama was not in the Senate at the time of the vote whereas Clinton was and might he possibly have voted differently had he been there for the vote is, I agree, a fair question to ask in evaluating the two candidates.

However, at the time of the ramp up to the war he spoke out forcefully and presciently so I think it's fair to judge him on what he said about the war:

speech text

re-created video

Obama was not in the Senate at the time of that vote.

Catherine Morgan — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 18:10:07 -0500

Hi Liz. I'm no expert, but I believe Obama wasn't in the Senate at the time of that vote. He never claims he was, but he does say that he was always against the war, while Hillary voted for it. I just don't think that it's a fair comparison...there is a lot less riding on words than on votes. That's just my opinion though.

Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
CatherineBlogs, The Political Voices of Women, Care2 Election Blog

Yes you can...

nelle2nelle — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:57:01 -0500

and I know the feeling.

On the pol board I co-host, the stuff coming from the left - left in this case being mostly right of me, because most everyone on the left is right of me (or at least that is what Denise would say. Have to maintain my image for the home crowd.)

There was thread after thread eviscerating Hillary, and if I had the audacity to suggest doing this is counterproductive... stand back.

I've backed away some from politics because of this particular campaign season, but did venture into offering up some thoughts on this last night - sort of in the same ball park as your posting.

nelle

Wait, he wasn't even in that vote???

Liz Rizzo — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 17:43:11 -0500

I hate to admit my total ignorance, but I thought he was there and voted against the war, and that was his whole point with that?

If anyone's got a second to educate me, I'd appreciate it...

Liz Rizzo

I blog at Everyday Goddess.

Why, thank you

Kim Pearson — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:31:06 -0500

Just my DuBoisian double-consciousness rearing its creolized head once again! ;-)

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor|Professor Kim|

Kim, you're brilliant!

Yvette Perry — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:08:19 -0500

...Citing a university scholar and the queen of hip hop in a single comment: priceless!

LOL

Six Impossible Things Before Breakfast

The presumption that everyone has a hidden agenda tires me

Kim Pearson — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 13:37:35 -0500

I don't have nearly your level of prominence, Morra, so that may be why I haven't seen what you've experienced. I have had people make presumptuous and insulting suggestions about me when I have written critically on other issues, so I can identify to some degree with what you're describing.

I also have had people lecture me about why, as a black person, i should be wary of Obama. Or that I should be crying right now because Rev. Jeremiah Wright's most recent media appearances may well have destroyed Obama's chances.

I've stopped watching CNN and MSNBC's analysis of the election, because I find it increasingly trivial. I respect people's right to support whoever they want. I think my job as a blogger and a citizen to question all of them, study their positions, and do the best job I can of presenting the best available version of the truth.

I think there are serious questions about each of the candidates, and questions we have to ask ourselves as well. Can Obama be the bridge-builder he wants to be, or would he be the second coming of Jimmy Carter? Does Hillary Clinton have the management skills and judgment to run the White House, given the well-documented problems with her campaign and some of her Senate votes? Do we really want a President McCain who regularly demonstrates his ignorance on economic issues, and whose reputation as a hothead even scares some of his Republican colleagues?

By the way, I just want to respond to Catherine's point about Obama as a media "golden boy." I agree that early coverage of him fit the archetypal hero narrative, but that narrative doesn't always benefit a candidate. There are lots of variants of the hero narrative - fallen hero (JFK, et.al.), tragic hero (LBJ), flawed hero (Mark McGwire, Pete Rose), antihero (Kurt Cobain). So I wouldn't assume that the early framing of his story benefits him in the end, even if it is sustained. Jack Lule of Lehigh University published a great book on archetypal narratives in journalism, Daily News, Eternal Stories, that I find very instructive on this point.

Finally, when it comes to potential criticism for what I write, I am increasingly looking to that great philosopher Mary J. Blige:

So I like what I see when I'm looking at me

When I'm walking past the mirror,

Can't worry about you and what you're gonna do

I'm a lady so I must stay classy

Gotta keep it hot, keep it together if I want to get better

See I wouldn't change my life, my life's just fine...

Stay strong.

Kim
BlogHer Contributing Editor|Professor Kim|

I'm a "Just Say No to McCain" supporter.

Catherine Morgan — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 12:32:46 -0500

Hi Morra. Great post. I'm a "Just Say No to McCain" supporter. Secretly...I really liked Edwards, and I did vote for him in FL (if you can call it voting in FL). Anyway, at that point I was feeling more critical of Hillary and her campaign, but when I looked at the Obama campaign, I wasn't lovin the "movement" aspect of it.

I just don't "buy" the idea that Obama isn't politics as usual...He's been the Democrat "golden boy" since his convention speech...And it was all part of an orchestrated attempt to mold him into a presidential candidate, and it's been successful.

I also don't think his main talking point (that Hillary voted for the war, while he was always opposed to it) is really viable. It's apples and oranges, because at that time she had to vote...but he did not. Saying what he "would have" done, really isn't the same...and he gets a lot of millage out of that alone.

I also don't like the fact that if I choose to write a post supporting Hillary, I most likely will be bombarded by hate from "so called" Obama supporters. It seems odd to me that Obama prides himself on running a kinder, gentler campaign, but many of his supporters (at least online) can be total bullies.

So that's what I think. But I will vote for the Democratic nominee regardless of who that person is. I am 100% a non-supporter of McCain.

Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
CatherineBlogs, The Political Voices of Women, Care2 Election Blog

This makes you an ideal person to cover politics, Morra.

lauriewrites — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:54:07 -0500

I am a waffler myself between the two candidates, have campaign fatigue, and we're not even to the general election yet. I've been told by some of my professors that I'm not supposed to have or express a political opinion. Some journalists don't vote.

This will never be me. However, I do restrict my comments about what candidate I'm supporting on blogs and Twitter, etc., partially because I don't have the strong views that other people do so it's silly to try to engage on that level, and partially because my energies are so scattered right now that I can't be consistent. So I'd prefer to just shut up and go about my business, listening a lot and pitching in when I have a thought worth expressing. I've had some really

I appreciate (with few exceptions) the people who go all out with vocal support for a candidate, as long as there is respect for rational, opposing views. And I think that it's not necessary - or even advisable all the time - to have strong views one way or another to cover politics effectively on a blog or in print. But that's just my opinion. ;)

Laurie

LaurieWrites

If I'm neither Team Hillary nor Team Barack- can I still blog about politics?

Morra Aarons Mele — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 11:08:08 -0500

Has this happened to you, or have you been an Obama-apologist? When bloggers and citizens write something critical of Barack Obama online, an army of Obamians rushes out to quash the opposing voice. On some websites and latter-day salons of digerati, questioning Obama is dangerous business. Surrender your progressive badge and hide your face! Elisa Camahort and I just talked about the "schoolyard mentality," of many Obama supporters, "especially on Twitter." I'm not a Twitterer, but I am often intimidated to write pro-Hillary comments on popular blogs because I know I'll be outnumbered by Obama supporters at a factor of like 30-1. For a while I thought the Hillary campaign just needed to get their act together and build more online support, now I just think it's the nature of the Obama campaign. As I've written before, the cool kids are for Obama, and have been all this cycle.

I went on TV the other night and at the segment's end Jim Braude, the very sharp anchor of NECN's Newsnight joked, "Maybe next time you come on you'll actually say something nice about your candidate." Before we went on air, I'd noted I was a Hillary Clinton supporter. Except, I'm not sure I am. Being a supporter of a candidate seems to mean--whether you're James Carville or a no-name blogger like me--you're required to defend "your candidate" even if they do something stupid. I've been very angry at how Clinton has run aspects of her campaign, and sometimes I think she should step down. But then I get angry at Obama's tactics too, and I throw my hands up in the air. It's not my job to defend Hillary Clinton. It's her job to prove to me why I should vote for her. If criticizing her makes me less than a "supporter," so be it. I think from here on out, I'll designate myself "anyone but McCain" and see how it goes. I'll be a neutral Democrat. More boring, but with fewer string attached.

The Democratic primary has gone on so long at this point, of course candidates' are starting to look a little less rosy. Polls change everyday, Hillary and Barack are neck and neck. And all the while, a force called the GOP snickers and gains strength. I really do think Democrats need to be anti-McCain at this point, not pro-Hillary or Barack.