"She's just as flawed as we are," Tweddle said. "It's not the fact that she's a woman but the way she does it all. And let me tell you: There're more American parents with unwed pregnant teenaged children than American parents with Harvard grads. She's real."
For hours, I walked through the crowd talking to people, mostly women. Again and again, I heard variations on this idea: "She's more like us than Obama, McCain or any of the others," as Rupp put it. "She knows what we go through."
As Fisher points out in his column, this is an extension of this idea that expertise, intelligence, and considered opinion are overrated. I'd take it even further--this is about Rocky as God, and the limits of a culture-hero, who in his latest incarnation asked us to believe that a 60-year old man could go toe to toe with championship-caliber boxer.
I don't want to lean to hard on this point, mostly because it bears an eerie resemblance to the way blacks supported Marion Barry and Sharpe James. But this idea that the person who has the means to end civilization should be like "like me" has got to end. This is not the time.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
TNC: I always got the impression that the support for Barry and James had more to do with neophobia and nostalgia than with anti-elitism (though the James/Booker contest obviously had elements of the latter). Where was the anti-elitism in Mayor Barry's continued base of support?
One of the women in the piece is named Victoria Robinson-Worst.
And I think you could add John Street, Kwame Kilpatrick, and Cynthia McKinney to your parade of black politico horribles.
I like me, but I wouldn't won't someone LIKE me to be President, Vice-President, or even head of FEMA.
It's because I know my limits through knowledge, education, self-reflection, and humility. All things that Sarah Palin seems to lack. Anyone who is certain that the only requirement is that "You don't blink" has either been playing too much Wii or has the certainty that it doesn't matter who I am because I will be carrying out God's plan.
Now, I have to go swallow my own vomit.
I agree completely. I didn't really read the post, but you're the blogger I most wanted to have a beer with.
(tee hee)
Voters are furious, and scared. If they get to choose between McCain/Palin saying "We're not going to let those goddamm islamofascists/Liberal elites/environmentalists keep screwing us over!!!" and Obama/Biden saying, "Now, hold on, these are serious times that call for serious thought and intelligent..." they are going to vote for angry.
Why was Kerry's speech at the Convention so good? Because he was furious. He wasn't saying, "The American people are angry and offended and scared," he himself was clearly angry and offended and scared because of Bush and everything the GOP stands for.
Obama and Biden must show people that they are as angry and scared about what's been going on in this country as the voters are. Then people will listen to them when they say they understand who we should really be angry at, and what we should really do about it.
I hate to say it, but don't sentiments like this prove that voters really are stupid?
I think being authentic and connecting with voters in a real way is an important quality for a politician to own. But it shouldn't be the only thing voters care about. And certainly it shouldn't be the only thing voters care about when faced with other facts that show serious defeciencies on the part of a politician.
My Dad is "more like me" than Obama, McCain or Biden, but I don't want him running the country (sorry, Dad).
I truly do not understand these people. I don't want a candidate who's "just like me." I don't know squat about running a $3 trillion enterprise like the American government. I can barely keep up my little corner of a $200 million non-profit most days. What I want are candidates with experience, smarts, and preferably an elite background in public administration. Normally I'd say governor is a good start, but when that governor oversees a public apparatus smaller than my hometown's, well, that raises some further concerns.
Is it too much to ask that we be able to decide between the better of two awesomely-qualified experts, as opposed to who might "feel my pain" more?
Goddamn, we are such as stupid country, and we deserve nothing more than McCain/Palin.
I'm watching the news coverage on TV. The focus seems to be on Palin's answer to the question about "Are you Ready?"
“I answered [McCain] yes because I have the confidence in that readiness and knowing that you can’t blink, you have to be wired in a way of being so committed to the mission, the mission that we’re on, reform of this country and victory in the war, you can’t blink.”
I'm sure it's easy for Palin to get on board with that mission. I'm sure she thinks she's ready; I'm sure she wants to be ready. But that's entirely different than actually being ready.
Not sure this interview will get vetted by the press in a way that highlights the FACT that she's not ready. If she says she's ready, well then, she must be ready!
I popped in a DVD from season 5 of the Wire last night (no, I still haven't finished the show yet). Palin's interview reminds me of Clay Davis, standing in front of the courthouse, quoting "Promise-thus Bound" by "Ah-silly-us". Populism works, just ask Hugo Chavez.
To me this leads to an obvious counter: "she may say she's just like you, but she's not." Then talk about her record. Obviously her background is very appealing, so hit her right there, at her strength.
It's too easy to say these voters are stupid. Even if you just mean they're stupid on this issue, the Republicans have been expert at lopping off "on this issue" and making people feel as though Democrats consider them stupid, period. It's not a place we can successfully go.
We've never had a working mom as veep or president, so for a lot of people, that represents change. The Democrats have to face that head-on, and keep pointing out that it doesn't mean a change in policy. And as Pesto says, show anger and passion about how destructive those policies have been.
Show specifically how McCain/Palin's policies are NOT good for working moms. Go straight at that demographic if that's their strength.
If it keeps being about Palin's experience or lack thereof, or her background, they keep the focus off of McCain and Obama. That can do nothing but hurt us. The Democrats, perhaps, should just start IGNORING Palin, since she's so exciting.
"She knows what we go through."
This is not stupid. It may even be accurate. It's only stupid if that's the end of the process, period, full-stop.
She knows what we go through, and therefore what?
Her line in the convention speech, for example, about how families with special-needs kids will have a friend in the White House does make sense and should get the attention of people who care about that. But she never said what she would actually do for special-needs families apart from befriending them, which I get the impression is probably not a blessed thing.
Jimmy Carter wrote a book called "Why Not the Best?," which helped send him to the White House in 1976. His opponents ridiculed him as being nothing more a slow-talkin' peanut farmer. (Whatever you think of his administration, it is universally recognized that he is an exceptional human being.)
I do not understand why 30 years later some people want a president who is "just like us." And it's called "elitist" to want a president who's smarter than us. Have we learned nothing from the last eight disastrous years with the guy whom we elected because he'd be fun to have a beer with?
Didn't the founding fathers lead a revolution so that we wouldn't be stuck with idiots running the country? I guess it never occurred to them* that the people actually would choose to be governed by idiots.
*exception for A. Hamilton and J. Adams
Herein we see the narcissism and closed-mindedness of the holy rollers. Everyone must be just like them, otherwise they are suspicious homos who need to be killed.
One of the spiritually toxic hazards of being a political junkie is the hair-pulling frustration and anger generated by witnessing the regular victories of lies and corruption over truth and justice. Andrew Sullivan, for instance, does not seem to be enjoying life these days. In this context, it become easy to view to our less informed peers as 'useful idiots', complicit in the malice of our political opponents. This is a completely understandable reaction. Still, it's unhelpful.
On good days, after some coffee, I remind myself that this is how democracy works -- it's a feature, not a bug. I try to remember:
1. There are people who absolutely disagree with my views and priorities and they get to get to choose, too. Full stop.
2. The set of things I 'know' almost always turns out to be more fluid and error-filled than I care to admit.
3. Being well-versed in current affairs and national politics is a civic virtue, but it's not the only civic virtue or even the most important.
4. It is a civic duty (or, at the very least, a civic opportunity) for the over-informed to educate and advocate on behalf of what they have learned. Education (the conveyance of knowledge and wisdom) is not the same thing as denunciation of ignorance. Education takes time and patience.
5. In the end, reason will prevail and the truth will endure -- mostly.
None of that is to say that it's not possible, common even, to lose important, painful battles.
Anger and hate are toxic to the soul.
I keep telling myself that anyway.
"Didn't the founding fathers lead a revolution so that we wouldn't be stuck with idiots running the country? I guess it never occurred to them* that the people actually would choose to be governed by idiots.
*exception for A. Hamilton and J. Adams"
My mother and I had a conversation the other day about what would happen if Jefferson suddenly rose from the dead and was a candidate for President. After all, not only was he well educated and eloquent, he actually founded a University. Talk about eliteist.
My mother and I had a conversation the other day about what would happen if Jefferson suddenly rose from the dead and was a candidate for President. After all, not only was he well educated and eloquent, he actually founded a University. Talk about eliteist.
Rising from the dead might garner him a certain number of votes, though. Lots of people were impressed the last time they thought it happened.
Reminds me of Sen. Hruska's defense of the Harold Carswell nomination to the Supreme Court many years ago:
"Even if he is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance?"
i'm sorry. you've got a retard baby and pregnant daughter betrothed to a high school dropout, a husband who rides snowmobiles competitively and a 72 yearold comes to you and says, "You wanna be Vice President?"
Who wouldn't say yes. What's the downside?
marcus. If you can't find a better way to express yourself, you should participate on a sleezy blog. Your comment was gross.
i have never comprehended that "I'd like to have a beer with that person" mentality. The thing is people want their leaders to understand what they are going through but somehow this degraded into them wanting pols to be REALLY "like them" I want my president to be like me but to know way more than me.
gross? you bet. this woman gets the keys to the nuclear football and can't even articulate the policy that is sending her precious Track to fight the A-rabs. I'll take gross over grossly negligent any day of the week.
I was going to argue, but the CDC says:
Maybe unwed pregnant daughter really is the new "one of us."
It's just a mild curiousity of mine, but there's an obvious follow-up to the "just like me" reasoning that I've never seen asked. Are there any surveys out there where the surveyor asks the person expressing support of a candidate like him or her whether he or she believes he or she could run the country? I'd like to see the answers. I suspect the answer would generally be "no."
If I'm right, then it may be the case that people want someone who has their values and judgment, but who is a lot better informed. So, in response to Palin, there are two ways to go: One, make her out to be a lot less like the average run of folk. Republicans seem to have a lock on this strategy.
The other option is to hammer home the point of how much she is just like your Aunt Lilly or the person next door. So, point out, for example, that:
"She's just like your next-door neighbor. No, seriously, you don't understand. She's just like your next-door neighbor. You know. The one who doesn't take his trash cans out of the driveway, ever. The one who is always putting off doing yardwork until midnight. That neighbor. The one whose crazy family stands around in the front yard screaming at all hours. Yeah, that's her. That's Sarah Palin. She's just like your neighbor."
These women should read Leonard Pitts' column this week. And substitute gender for race.
http://www.miamiherald.com/living/columnists/leonard-pitts/story/679582.html
heavens, did i just see a palin supporter condescending to harvard graduates? here i thought condescenscion was supposed to be something that only harvard graduates possessed, and it was always aimed at working people.
i'm so confused....
The issue isn't even about identity versus expertise, it is about identity versus any discussion or consideration of what may actually be done that will help or hurt the group in question.
In addition to the foreign policy and fitness to be President issues, the debate to pick with Palin is about what she will do for women.
Will she make them pay for their own rape kits?
What is her record on domestic violence? (look up Alaskan women's groups: Palin fired the public safety commissioner who was actually doing something, and Alaska leads the nation in rape and domestic violence.)
Do women want Roe v Wade overturned? Abortion banned in cases of rape and incest?
What does Palin propose to do for families? Health insurance? Education?
How, exactly, will she help families with special needs children? Will she propose a govt program? Or just another thousand points of light?
Obama had better not allow Palin, who thumps the Bible at will, to get away with the moral majority crap.
Honestly, why would Obama wants the white feminist vote anyway? They are turncoats from giddy up.
If this how they choose to wield their voting power in what could be a very pivotal election for this country, then if things don't get any better for women (white women, hard-working white women,) then I don't want to hear shit from them again.
I wouldn't be too concerned about this WaPo piece if I was scared of a McCain Presidency (which I am).
They went to a Palin rally, and the people there support Palin. And they project upon her. Astounding.
I must wonder about this myself - how many of these people wake up in the morning and think, "hey, I could be the leader of the free world, that shit doesn't look that hard!?"
I know that when there is some monumental task in front of me, such as, say, the two times I went to war, I looked real hard at my leaders, and I thought, "these are some bad dudes - they're smart, relentless, mean when they have to be, and wily as hell - these are the guys I want to go to combat with." I didn't think I wanted some average joe that I might like to sit next to in a bar. And, in the end, I was damn lucky to have some of the best Marines that have ever been in charge of the show. That's also what I want in a president - not average, fuck that - I want a total badass that impresses on all fronts.
PTR
Patriot Games,
Actually, women are more likely than men to support the overturn of Roe v. Wade. This is to be expected. After all, women tend, by their essential nature, to love children more than men, to value personal relationships more than abstract ideals, and to be more religious. It is to be expected that women will be less likely than men to support abortion, which constitutes a brutal violation of the natural mother-child bond, and a brutal assault on charity and human life, in the name of abstract ideal like "freedom of choice".
There are only two grups of people who have really benefited from abortion. Irresponsible men who like to use women for casual sex, and racist eugenicists who want to see fewer of the 'wrong' sort of people being born.
Monstertron made the point I was going to make:
I actually do want someone who is like me: rational, reflective, aware that anything involving humans is political and several other things. I would like someone capable of connecting to my kind of experience. I don't want me in the job; however, I'd love someone like me but who chose to put as much energy going down that path as I chose going down my path.
In fact, I think that many of the supporters of Obama do see themselves in Obama and that's part of his appeal.
I think you're making a mistake by trying to interpret "just like me" as an honest (but stupid) explanation.
I will never forget the interview I saw right after the OJ Simpson murder trial in which the jurors tried to explain what was wrong with the evidence.
That was code.
So is this.
I don't want to lean to hard on this point, mostly because it bears an eerie resemblance to the way blacks supported Obama against Clinton
"expertise, intelligence, and considered opinion are overrated"
This is very true. People are okay with these factors as long as the candidate appears to be highly authentic and charismatic. Problem with Sarah Palin is that she doesn't have to waste time trying to be "of the people." She is the people. In any other election Sarah Palin and Barack Obama would probably not have made it so far but for some reason 2 year Governor & a mayor of a small town, and conversely a guy who spent 143 days as Senator and has campaigned for 50% time while being in office is more appealing than you know accomplished people who tried to make a mark in their respective office.
Bill Clinton was probably the only exception to the rule. He was intelligent but also a policy wonk and a "down to earth," kind of guy...I guess almost too "down to earth" when you look at his behavior.
It seems that in this election the people who were best on the issues on both sides were knocked out for character/appeal candidates and respective VPs didn't really help fix that.
Oh well...C'est La Vie with American Elections.