the Washington game

So Obama gave a speech saying the-debate-didn't-really-count-anyways, which is predictable. And he said Washington-politics-as-usual was a game we should just ignore (if it hurts him), the bad questions excuse - that irrelevant issues shouldn't be held against him, and should be viewed as proof that Clinton is a bad candidate, a person who is all the things he has claimed she is.

I've said before he does nothing but blame. The man wouldn't know personal responsibility if it smacked him to the ground and and took his wife's purse.

But the funny thing is, the only reason Clinton isn't doing well is because of that very political experience Obama claims to hate - that he claims to be the victim of, and that he says he wants to change. The only reason Clinton is "unelectable" is because of the superficial, the trivial - the gotcha politics. Sexism and redneck Bubba politics.

If it were just about issues and competence, Clinton is the one the voters would back.

Unlike him, I don't hate that political experience - call it the Washington game, three parts image and one part gotcha mentality. It's painful and often silly, but I see it as a valid part of how large groups of people make decisions. And, funny thing, even though I have no doubt that of the three candidates in the race, Clinton is by far the best, I also find that my respect for her (the actual emotion I feel when I feel positive things toward her) is based primarily on the fact that she is experiencing this political hostility - the same political hostility that Obama is claiming full credit for being victimized by.

By this I do not mean a reverse-Ferraro - that I only like Clinton because she's some sort of victim.

If this craziness had not started up as it did, changing my feelings toward politics and elections and the Democratic party and all the candidates, I would have voted for her had she been the nominee (just as I would have voted for Obama, and indeed expected to). But there was a certain displeasure - on the one hand, the governance would probably be pretty good, an approach probably pretty close to Bill's, maybe even same cabinet - but I didn't like her personally, and that's more or less what I mean when I say respect.

Agreement does not mean respect. There are many kinds and levels of respect.

I mean that the sexism gives me a chance to see something about Clinton that I am only able to see because this is happening. The woman has won my respect in a way I never would have imagined could happen a year or two ago, and that's because she has been tested, and I particularly like the way she's been handling that test.

She has got something going in her, and in her campaign, that is largely unrecognized - but there nonetheless. Qualities in her that are being tested by the injustice that others say isn't there.

And she's trying to live up to that test, instead of whining about how it is too there, and if you don't see it, you must be some kind of bigot.

Honestly - the only way you can have equality is by proving yourself. It's not fair. But that's how it works.

Or maybe it is fair. In injustice there is opportunity. In hardship comes the chance to demonstrate your quality.

A woman will become President when she can win the votes and she can win the respect. You can't do it on affirmative action, or by whining, or by making speeches, or by making demands, or by making excuses, or by making accusations.

And you have to do it despite the fact that people are going to try to stop you. That's reality. That's why being the first to do something like this earns a spot in the history books.



I am afraid Hillary Clinton will not be our President - but her toughness and the fight she's got in her will pave the way for the woman who someday will.

Of course, if I'm wrong, I think she'd make a great President - much better than Bush or McCain or Obama.

Like most people, there are qualities I look for in a candidate:

I want a candidate who has the right approach toward issues.

I want a candidate who is qualified and competent.

I want a candidate with character.

These are all the usual things people judge candidates by (no matter how much they say only the first item counts). In addition to this, there is the usual desire that human beings have:

I want to like the candidate.

The least important, yet probably the most influential - and it is this least important thing that is killing Clinton.

I am afraid McCain will screw up the economy, widen the rift between rich and poor so wide the poor might very well just go and die. I fear he will send far too many people to die, killing far too many people who shouldn't be having their homeland attacked in the first place. And that's some pretty compelling reason to not want McCain to win, even before we get to the secondary issues.

But I don't think Obama is much better than McCain. This is a turnaround for me - I thought he was virtually the same as Clinton on the issues, but I no longer think he would govern in much the same way Clinton would. Quite frankly, I think all the things I fear from McCain will come true under an Obama presidency, plus a few other things as well.

Would Clinton be better? I am pretty confident she would.

Now - with that said - I have to say that what really won my admiration was how she plays politics when too many are against her, when the injustice is enough to choke much larger creatures, when the situation is impossible and victory looks pretty unlikely and everyone is just being vicious.

If Clinton doesn't win the Presidency, she will nonetheless earn a spot in the history books on behalf of her gender, in the fight for equality.

My God can that woman take it and keep coming. Of course she's a fighter. The first time I watched the clip someone put together - the one with the Rocky music -I found myself getting irrationally sentimental.



But it isn't just that. It's the way she just keeps becoming a better candidate, a better politician. She seems to be looking at the situation and evaluating - what is it that needs to be done? - and then she is doing it.

Whereas Obama whines and gives speeches explaining how victimized he is - which is always someone elses' fault (watch the blaming!) and/or irrelevant anyway - Clinton just keeps working to be the candidate America needs, ignoring the worthless criticism and responding to the criticism that is relevant - not with speeches, but with an attitude that shows she knows how to get things done. She's strong. She isn't making excuses. She is evaluating what the American people need, and she is making an offer that we are fools to turn away based on how her laugh sounds, because someone put the idea out there that her laugh sounds like a "cackle", like a witch's laugh. And now that's the most important thing - to heck with the economy, does that woman sound like a cackling witch or what?

Obama makes a lot of talk about how Washington needs something else, but how much of that is because he has to keep talking - he has to somehow stop people from looking at Clinton's issues, because she's so totally way better than him, it has to be all about image. Has to.

Because image is where Obama has her, totally has her. And really - if it isn't her voice, her face, her being an old woman, her being a woman, her clothes, the way she presents herself, the fact that she's a witch or a hag or a harpy or a ballbuster, the fact that she's shrill or hysterical or that young spoiled males with mommy issues want to punch her face in - if it isn't for all those things Obama says are so wrong about Washington, what the heck would Obama have over Clinton?

This election is really making me rethink past failures and losses - especially Kerry's.