smile & enjoy

tech, culture and trends. please, enjoy.

Obama & Farrakhan

I once read a quote by the father of client-centered therapy saying, ‘no matter what a person may tell you, their never saying what their saying’.  This notion works on a variety of levels and can be simply demonstrated when ‘Pat’ asks ‘Jamie’ to “please pass the salt”.  On the basic level, Pat has the experience of knowing that when a reasonable request is made among polite company, the wish is granted.  Furthermore, it’s likely that Pat needed to have some previous experience with Jamie, knowing that Jamie is a reliable fellow who will likely help out his friend.  Perhaps this just a snapshot into a timeline of their relationship of bids for emotional connection; the two may have a procession of gains and losses from their relationship.  Of course, the unspoken giant would be the intonation, which can likely be a predictor of emtions being felt by Pat.  At this point you’re probably wondering, what does this have to do with Obama?  The point from this simple example is that there are varying levels of communication on behalf of the candidates.  Going beyond expectations of previous experience and verbal suggestions there are elements of the campaigning process which voters need to be cognizant of.

As critics have ridiculed the democratic party for producing two identical candidates (which isn’t unreasonable), the two have had to differentiate not on their intended agenda but their qualifications for realizing such an agenda.  In the upcoming Democratic Primary, Senator Obama of Illinois and Senator Clinton of New York will be battling for the opportunity to have the Democratic nomination for President of the United States.  As tensions between the two heat, it has become challenging to expect that one could become the subservient vice president to the other.  On the other hand, however, this shouldn’t be much of an issue as the two disagree very little on policy.

 It seems to be the case that both support the notion of a plan for universal healthcare, tax reform as well as a general distaste for President George W. Bush.

The Obama campaign has critiqued Clinton for her flip-flop-edness when dealing with a variety of domestic and international affairs.  The Clinton campaign has critiqued Obama as lacking experience, as the majority of his noteworthy behavior has been motivational speeches and books rather than productive efforts.  Both sides bring up good concerns.  Is Obama’s historic inexperience in working with congress a sign that he is not yet prepared to either lead or unite?  And, should it concern voters that Clinton’s decisions aren’t grounded enough for her to maintain a position?

To dismiss both of these fallacious critiques, in observing the high-level of professionalism held by the Obama campaign, in both its ability to gain grass roots support and develop sustaining election strategies, Obama has proven that despite his lack of Congressional experience he is an able leader.  If his campaign were a predictor, he would make a fine leader.  And, to reference a previous Democratic nominee, it’s far better to be a flip-flopper and recognize a bad policy than usher in a time of unnecessary suffering based on arrogance.  Clinton has changed her positions both on healthcare and approaches to Operation Iraqi Freedom, this shows a high level of maturity in leadership, adding a compliment to ‘a woman’s touch’.

 As Obama is an African-American Senator, and Clinton is a female, both represent opportunities for groups of people who have never seen the likes of the oval office.  While the media has persistently highlighted opportunities where race or gender may have been an issue, the campaigns really haven’t touched on either of these as issues.  However, among public opinion, it seems as though there is no attention given to Senator Clinton as a female but persistently Obama supporters highlight areas where there has been prejudice against Senator Obama.

As Senator Obama’s history can be significantly tracked in his words, leaving an open question about his actions, voters have tried to get an idea of what kind of a President he would be by looking at the decisions he has made in his life.  A lot of light has been shed on the church where Senator Obama and his family worship, despite very little attention being paid to Senator Clinton’s church. The leader of Senator Obama’s church is reason for concern as he had given an award to the xenophobic Louis Farrakhan and preaches afro-centrist ideals.  Although Senator Obama publicly denounced Farrakhan, this is the place where Senator Obama feels comfortable raising his children.  Despite all of the back and forth, the real question is who will lead the Democratic Party’s agreed agenda more effectively?

In Obama’s campaign, it is very interesting that many of his previously held notions have taken him away from his supporters to their direct opponents. Senator Obama was a fervent opponent of Israel, with the leader of his church to prove it, but now Obama has alienated those who were his historic constituents.  

Perhaps public opinion has caused him to realize harsh realities, but it is suspicious about the novelty of Senator Obama’s electoral policy appraoch.  If he is alienating his antagonizers of Israel, why would they continue to vote for him? Furthermore, with shifts in his stances toward administrative affairs, what are people really voting for?  His boyish good looks?

This election started out with Clinton winning by a large margin, she entered the campaign with the attitude that she was going to win, this strategy hasn’t paid off.  Now, Obama’s campaign has fallen into similar woes and undecided voters are falling for Senator Clinton.  Voters are realizing that its not an issue of flip-flopping but predictability as a leader.  We all realize the great strides that have been taken since universal male suffrage and womens suffrage gave voices to millions and this election will certainly speak leagues for both camps; beautifully parodying the Druids of Israel.   

 

Voters this election need to wise up and realize that this election isn’t a popularity contest, it’s about who can lead our system most effectively.  The poles are representing ideas of a rational individual because as the candidates have taken principle shifts the poles are left unchanged but when notions of xenophobia are suggested points are traded.  In reading the campaigning dialogue, voters need to understand who and what they are voting for, deciding what is important to them and alienating emotional ideas of…well, he’s just such a good guy.

Advertisements

Written by Joe

3 March at 7 pm

Posted in learn

%d bloggers like this: