A Philosopher's Blog

Philosophical Essays on Many Subjects

Hillary

Hillary Supporters & McCain

by Leave a Comment

Tonight Hillary Clinton will be speaking at the DNC. Naturally, it is not the acceptance speach that she had hoped to give, but perhaps it will help bring some closure to the Democrats. Hillary is supposed to release her delegates to Obama, presumably with the music from “Born Free” playing in the background.

While Hillary and Bill seem to have been walking alongside the Obama bandwagon, some of her supporters have still not forgiven Obama for getting the nomination. Interestingly, the percentage of Hillary supporters who say they will vote for McCain has increased recently. McCain’s minions have cleverly decided to tap into this by featuring Hillary in one of their advertisements. McCain’s people have been trying to win the support of women voters for quite some time and the Hillary situation gives them a possible opportunity to tap into a powerful motivating force: spite.

Obviously enough, the people who supported Hillary are most likely opposed to most of McCain’s political views. After all, his voting record and positions are significantly different from Hillary’s in key ways. Obama, in contrast, is very similar to Hillary in his votes and positions. Thus, a plausible reason why some Hillary supporters are saying they will vote for McCain is that they are angry and wish to punish Obama (and the other Democrats) for “taking” the nomination away from Hillary.

If this is the case, then the Hillary supporters would seem to be acting in an irrational manner. After all, they would be letting their anger guide them towards an action which would be inconsistent with their professed political values.

Of course, perhaps their true political views are that Hillary should be the candidate and Obama should be punished for taking the nomination from her. In this case, they would be acting in accord with those values (which might be irrational in themselves).

Another possibility (and but one more among many) is that they think that if McCain gets elected, then Hillary will have a chance in the 2012.This strategy seems to be borrowed from the Republicans.

I’ve spoken to some Republicans who actually hoped that Hillary would get elected because they believed she would wreck the country and thus help push the country back to the Republicans for years to come. Interestingly enough, some Hillary supports have expressed the view that McCain should be elected so that he will continue to wreck the country in the manner of Bush. Having lost, Obama will be tainted with failure and will be out of the running in 2012. So, it will be a clear nomination path for Hillary and then, presumably, smooth sailing to what is left of the White House.

From a moral standpoint, there is much that can be said about allowing evil (or a perceived evil) to happen in the hopes of getting what you desire later. After all, those who care about the well being of the people would certainly not want to allow someone into office who they think would damage the country. That would clearly be an evil action.

This can, of course, be countered by arguing that the evil is necessary to bring about a greater good. So, Hillary supporters might argue that while they regard McCain as a bad choice and someone who will do things they oppose, he must be elected so that Hillary will be able to do all the good they believe she will do.

It can also be countered by taking the view that it is not about good and bad. Rather, it is about getting your candidate into the office, regardless of how much damage this does. That would certainly be wicked.

It might be the case that the explanation is less sinister. It might be a mere case of disappointed bitterness. Those who fell in behind Hillary wanted to win and the enemy was Obama. The convention, which is Obama’s, would seem like a fresh slap in the face to the Hillary supporters. After all, who wants to see their enemy praised and lifted high? Hence, the Hillary supporters would have a surge of bitterness as the convention approached. Perhaps the bitterness will fade as the Democrats start trying to get their act together against McCain. Then again, maybe McCain can keep fueling that bitterness and bring some of the spiteful Democrats over to his side. After all, a spiteful vote sill looks the same in the results tally.

Women, McCain & Obama

by Leave a Comment

Like the battle between Clinton and Obama, the general election in 2008 will be heavily fought along gender lines.

Not surprisingly, Hillary enjoyed extensive support among many female voters while she was contesting with Obama. This contest, as most will recall, often saw the Democrats lashing away at each other over race and gender. It was a bitter struggle and some would say that the battle was over whether race or gender would emerge with the medal for greatest victim. In the end, Obama won out. As with all civil conflicts, the Democratic party now contains many bitter and angry people.

Recently Carly Fiorina (of HP fame) was in Columbus, Ohio. She was speaking to the group Women for Fair Politics on behalf of John McCain. Although McCain’s actual positions on many issues puts him at odds with most Democrats, he is no doubt hoping to tap into the bitter anger of many female supporters of Hillary.

While the anger might fade by November, it is currently quite intense. Some of Hillary’s ardent supporters have accused Obama of attacking the Clintons in a way comparable to the infamous swift boat campaign against John Kerry. Naturally, there are also accusations of sexism being made.

Although saying so is sexist, I cannot resist saying that hell hath no fury like a woman scorned. This fury is best expressed by Cynthia Ruccia. In addition to cofounding the women’s group in question, she is alo a Democratic Party official in Franklin County. She said the following: “We need to elect John McCain in 2008″That’s the only way the Democratic Party will learn it can’t treat women this way.” (Newsweek, June 23 2008)

Such anger is not unexpected. Many women regarded Hillary as more than just another candidate. They saw her as an avatar of all American women. Hence, her defeat would be regarded by some not as Hillary losing, but of women being mistreated once again (presumably by the patriarchy). Naturally, it is interesting to speculate whether black Americans would have reacted in an analogous way, should Hillary have emerged the victor.

From a practical standpoint, there is the question of whether such bitterness will endure. Will Democratic woman vote for McCain in order to punish the Democrats and Obama for their perceived sins against women?

Obviously, the many female supporters of Obama will not do so. They obviously do not think that the Democrats mistreated women. The angry and bitter women who feel betrayed by the Democrats might be able to sustain their anger for months-especially if people like Fiorina keep stoking their bitterness. However, as the anger cools and they look more carefully at McCain’s positions (especially on the  issue of abortion), they might return to the Democratic fold and vote for Obama. After all, Obama has an excellent voting record in terms of the general values of most female Democrats.

Some women might decide that the price of having McCain elected is worth the lesson that will allegedly be taught to the Democratic party. Presumably, the Democrats are supposed to learn that they should not give the nomination to the candidate who wins the nomination process but to the female candidate. That doesn’t seem like a lesson that should be taught.

It can be replied that the lesson the women have in mind is that the Democrats should treat female candidates better. While Hillary did get attacked based on her gender, it must also be noted that Obama took shots because of his gender and his race.As such, the Democrats could learn some lessons in both these areas.

Also, it must be kept in mind that national politics is not an afternoon in the kiddy pool. National politics is a high stakes game and it can get a bit rough. As such, some hard shots are to be expected. Yes, I do think that people should be polite and ethical and hence believe that politics should be played better. But I am careful to distinguish between what I would prefer and what is likely.

Another question is whether Hillary was treated worse because she is a woman. People who think she was tend to point to the gender based attacks as evidence that she was attacked because she is a woman. Some even go so far as to see any attack on Hillary as being gender based. Presumably they reason that an attack on a woman must be motivated by her gender.

While gender based attacks would show that she was attacked as a woman, this still leaves room to wonder whether she was attacked because she is a woman.

When politicians run against each other, they almost always attack each other directly and indirectly. As such, the main reason Hillary was under attack was because she was in competition with Obama. If a man had been running so close against Obama, he would have been attacked as well.

It could be replied that the gender based attacks show a gender bias. After all, there were many non-gender issues that Hillary could be attacked on (such as the numerous Scandals during the Clinton administration).

This is, of course, a matter worth considering. Hillary did take numerous gender based attacks. However, most of these came from outside of the Democratic party. Ironically, many of those who launched such attacks are supporting McCain. So, if the angry women fall in behind McCain, they will be joining with some of the very people who launched gender based attacks on Hillary.

Women who are liberal on what are considered woman’s issues should rationally support Obama. After all, his views are in line with such views. McCain is a true conservative on such issues. However, bitterness and anger are not rational things and one must remember that hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

Sins of the Past

by 2 Comments

After members of the media were subjected to a sarcastic attack on Saturday Night Live, Obama has been getting more negative media attention. To be specific, people in the media have been putting considerably more effort into digging into his past in order to find dirt.

Not surprisingly, various potential problem areas have been found. Some examples include:

His involvement with Rezko. This was brought up in the past and Obama claims that he made a boneheaded mistake by being involved in such dealings.


It was brought to the attention of the public that his pastor, Rev. Jerimiah Wright, delivered a rather controversial speech in response to 9/11. Obama has recently denounced statements made by his pastor regarding 9/11 and his claim that blacks should denounce the United States.

His association with 1960s radicals has been making the news.

No doubt, more such things will be found and presented in the press. Also, the other candidates are getting the same sort of treatment as well. While there is a certain pleasure to be gained from hearing of such misdeeds, the question arises as to whether the “sins of the past” should be held against candidates (or people in general) today.

On one hand, people should be held accountable for their past actions and decisions. Just because a person repudiates what was done or offers an excuse, it does not follow that s/he is off the hook. Further, what a person has done and said affects the person s/he is now. So, for example, the person Obama is now was affected by his association with Rezko and his involvement with his pastor. Likewise for the past of Hillary and McCain.

When someone runs for President, they try to clean up their past and say how they have changed in regards to past problems. Of course, the question arises as to how much the person has really changed. Perhaps, as some would suggest, the alleged “change” is a calculated move to get elected (much as Romney “changed” when he decided to run for President).

On the other hand, people do change and do learn from the mistakes of the past. In my own case, I made many mistakes in my life that I learned from. I infer that many other people have also learned from past errors. I also infer from observing other people, especially people I have known for a long time. They also made mistakes and changed in ways that made them better.

So, when (for example) Obama “categorically” denounces what his pastor said in response to 9/11, perhaps he is telling the truth. Perhaps when Hillary and McCain do similar things, they too are telling the truth.

It is, of course, hard to tell. The proof lies in the doing. Naturally enough, a clever person can fake it long enough to get elected. Knowing the truth behind the words is a hard thing and one that will cost us if we fail to do so.

Hillary’s Telephone Ad: How Ironic

by Leave a Comment

Some pundits have claimed that Hillary’s clever phone ad helped her campaign efforts. This may well be the case. However, one interesting fact about the ad is that one of the children, Casey Knowles, portrayed in the commercial is now an Obama supporter.

While this might conjure up visions of a young child holding up a sign scrawled in crayon, Ms. Knowles has served as a campaign volunteer and plans to vote for Obama. This might seem rather odd-after all, the child in the ad was 8 years old. However, the ad was pieced together from stock footage of children and the segment featuring Ms. Knowles is 9 years old. She is 17 now and will be 18 in time for the general election.

The practice of using stock footage and images is a common one. This is why, for example, you often see the same person in the same exact pose selling various products and services for different companies.

This practice does raise some moral questions in terms of honesty. In the case of many ads, including the Hillary ad, the practice seems perfectly acceptable. After all, the ad is aimed at conveying a message and selling a product (in this case, a candidate). Whether the images of actors or not makes no real difference.  This is because there is no claim that the images show people who actually support the candidate. The point of the ad is not to establish that the kids shown support Hillary. The point is to scare Americans into voting for Hillary. Whether the use of such tactics is acceptable or not is another matter.

Similarly, using stock footage or images of people in commercials for products is acceptable-provided that it is not claimed or implied that these people use or endorse the product (assuming they do not, of course). After all, in this case the people are functioning as living props or backdrops as opposed to being people who are supposed to be endorsing the product.

There have been examples of companies presenting ads that contain what purport to be “real” people (as opposed to actors or PR folks). One of the best known cases is when Microsoft tried to counter the Mac switching ads  by presenting their own switch ad of someone who allegedly switched from a Mac to a PC. It turns out the alleged switcher worked for the PR company hired by Microsoft to create the ad.  The phony ad was quickly pulled-and rightfully so.

In the case of Ms. Knowles, the most that can be said is that it is certainly a delightful irony that she is now a devoted supporter of Obama. This is certainly something that can be used to his advantage. In fact, I can picture various clever ads now playing on this interesting turn of events.

I suspect that the candidates will start having their minions investigate stock footage a bit more closely now.

%d bloggers like this: