Well, Hillary Clinton won Ohio and Rhode Island tonight, Barack Obama won Vermont, and Hillary Clinton won by small margin in Texas. It is nonetheless clear that (a) Obama still has a substantial, likely insurmountable lead in elected delegates and (b) Clinton will redouble her efforts in the race.
The speeches given by the two candidates to their supporters were as expected: Obama's was far more inspiring, but Clinton's was fine.
Two things I did not like in the Clinton speech were (1) her inclusion of Michigan and Florida in the tally of states she had won (especially egregious in the case of Michigan, where Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot), and (2) her reference to the 3 o'clock in the morning ad, of which her campaign is apparently very proud. From my perspective, having studied the history of propaganda, that ad ranks as one of worst panderings to public fears (right up there with Tony Schwartz's atom bomb ad on behalf of LBJ in 1964).
And Obama again offered his view that kids would be better off with books than video games - at least he didn't include television along with video games this time. But children can benefit from both books and video games - it need not be one or the other.
So, two good speeches, one inspiring (Obama's), one nonetheless effective (Clinton's), two things wrong with Clinton's and one thing wrong with Obama's - at least, according to my tally.
With John McCain now the unofficial offical Republican nominee, what can the Democrats do to unite their party in the face of two so equally matched candidates?
Here is my proposal: Obama and Clinton agree to the following: 1. Whoever has the greatest number of elected delegates at the end of primaries gets the Presidential nomination. 2. The other candidate gets the VP nomination. (Florida and Michigan do not count - unless the primaries are done over in those two states.)
Hey, I'm still supporting Obama, and I'm sure my proposal won't fly (I doubt that either campaign would agree to it) - but, think about it, it could be the best way to proceed - one which most respects the democratic process.
5 comments:
A tough night for Obama, even if he ends up coming away with more delegates as it appears he may. The perception is not good. He needs to channel his inner tough guy a little and show that he can be both cerebral and a fighter. The working class vote that he lost likes a little toughness in their candidate and she has that over him.
I think you missed the point with the books/video games comment. In the past he's been a bit more "either/or" about it, but yesterday he said that parents should make sure their children pick up a book and put down the video games sometimes (or something to that effect). He was speaking a lot more to a sense of balance and to the need to foster literacy in children who have all but given it up.
I don't think the tone was anti-video games as much as it was pro-literacy. It was pro-parental involvement and pro-balance.
Finally, I don't see why Obama should accept a VP nomination from Hillary Clinton, even if he somehow finds himself behind in the delegate count (an impossibility without superdelegate shenanigans). I've always held to the belief that you should never entertain the idea of a VP role for someone who you'd outperform in a general election. Obama has FAR broader appeal in a general election and holds a significant advantage over Hillary in a potential matchup with John "Granpa Al Lewis" McCain.
Clinton will be Senate Majority leader if she can't catch him, which is far more prestigious than being Obama's sidekick. In the end, both Democratic camps have started to seriously dislike one another anyway. It would be a shotgun marriage. I started the primary season with a sense of excitement and a desire to support whoever won, but Hillary has all but lost me with the fear tactics. I'm not sure if I'll vote for her or stay home. (I'll probably hold my nose and vote....)
Just a response on the video games/books statement (for now):
My point is that it's a false dichotomy (which you seem to be falling for, too ...:)
In fact, playing video games could conceivably encourage reading - say, books about the characters in the video games.
But, even if not, there's more than enough room in the human intellect and our appetite for entertainment to pursue both.
Delivering a line which says let's get our kids to stop playing so many video games so they can read more books is media illiterate (or at very least, not media savvy) - and is probably also pandering for a certain kind of vote.
But I think it misses the point Dr. Levinson.
Barack Obama is speaking less of suburban kids with good families and soccer practice three times a week than he is of kids from urban areas, in failing schools, with no study habits and poor parental supervision.
Those kids are largely left on their own. They aren't encouraged by their teachers to strive for more. Their parents are either too busy or too disinterested to help their kids build the skills they need to be competitive in the world. We're not talking about competition in the sense that they can be a lawyer, manager, or teacher. We're talking about caring enough about education to graduate from high school, get a shot at college, or at least hold down a job with some possibility of upward mobility.
Video games, television, and video entertainment of most kinds don't build skills for that type of opportunity. I'm not saying there is zero value in those things. I'm saying that there is far greater value in reading a book, playing sports, or joining some kind of club that fosters personal interaction. When you're dealing with kids who are starting with a serious sociological disadvantage, the value of time spent in these ways is critical.
To your point about video games "conceivably encouraging reading" I would argue that most kids who are in failing schools and depressed economic locales can't rely on "conceivable" outcomes. They need their parents to step in, turn off the TV more often, and read with their kids. I think that's what Obama is saying, and I would agree with him.
There is more than enough room in the human intellect and our appetite for entertainment to pursue both....in a stable, middle class environment. In my opinion, as a parent, time spent on entertainment always must be predicated upon effort and progress in education and life skills. This is even more true for kids in disadvantaged situations. Just my opinion....
Well, where we disagree is I see no difference in the needs of the intellect of rich, middle-class, and poor people when it comes to books vs. video games.
Because although I think that reading is indeed nurturing of many skills of the mind, so indeed are television and video games.
In fact, given the growing importance of just YouTube in professional life, there's a case to be made that playing video games could be even more pertinent to the future lives of all kids.
Which, again, is not at all to say that reading is unimportant.
But it is to say there is more than one path to the sharpening of the mind, the stoking of imagination, and the incitement of creativity.
Interesting. I'd like to engage you in a little more depth on this. My feelings are predicated by my reading of Ong, Goody, Postman and others. The orality-literacy corner of Media Ecology is very important to my understanding of our social organization.
The organization of the human mind is affected largely by the form of information acquisition most prevalent in any individual's experience. Reading and literacy organize the mind in such a way that we have been able to build much of what we consider modern, Western civilization. It would seem that a return to a semi-tribal state would undo or transform that civilization and I would argue that democracy would become something different altogether in the process.
My view of the progression of modern, Western civilization may be off target somewhere, and my analysis of the direction of its evolution may also be off. I don't know. Let's have a conversation about this when you have time.
Post a Comment