After the Florida primary, and the withdrawal of Giuliani, it increasingly looks like John McCain will be the Republican Party nominee. This being the case, it is essential that with John Edwards withdrawing from the Democrat field that Democrats cease focusing on past loyalties and other distractions and select a nominee who has a chance of winning in November. Should it be a McCain vs. Hillary contest, we had all best prepare for another GOP administration. David Brooks at the New York Times and Andrew Sullivan both make a case why Obama MUST be the Democrat nominee. First, here are highlights of Brooks' comments (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/29/opinion/29brooks.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=slogin):
Last week there was the widespread revulsion at the Clintons’ toxic attempts to ghettoize Barack Obama. In private and occasionally in public, leading Democrats lost patience with the hyperpartisan style of politics — the distortion of facts, the demonizing of foes, the secret admiration for brass-knuckle brawling and the ever-present assumption that it’s necessary to pollute the public sphere to win. All the suppressed suspicions of Clintonian narcissism came back to the fore. Are these people really serving the larger cause of the Democratic Party, or are they using the party as a vehicle for themselves?
And then Monday, something equally astonishing happened. A throng of Kennedys came to the Bender Arena at American University in Washington to endorse Obama. Caroline Kennedy evoked her father. Senator Edward Kennedy’s slightly hunched form carried with it the recent history of the Democratic Party.
Then, in the speech’s most striking passage, he set Bill Clinton afloat on the receding tide of memory. “There was another time,” Kennedy said, “when another young candidate was running for president and challenging America to cross a New Frontier.” But, he continued, another former Democratic president, Harry Truman, said he should have patience. He said he lacked experience. John Kennedy replied: “The world is changing. The old ways will not do!”
Next, from a gay perspective, Andrew Sullivan clarifies why no gay should support Hillary over Obama. I can only hope people wake up to the fact that Hillary is unelectable quickly. Here are Sullivan's thoughts (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/01/obama-and-the-g.html):
If you're a Democrat, it isn't really a contest. We all know the record of the Clintons on gay equality. In the words of Melissa Etheridge, they "threw us under the bus" when it was politically expedient for them (after they'd bled the gay community financially dry). Here are a few YouTubes of Obama's public, proud and often risky defenses of gay and lesbian equality - in front of non-gay audiences and not prompted by questions. The Ebenezer sermon, when he called on black congregants in MLK's church not to condemn or ostracize their "gay brothers and sisters" (after the 9 minute mark). The AU speech (around the 9 minute mark again). His stump speech, "Countdown To Change." Obama was the only Democratic candidate to mention gay and lesbian equality in his announcement address. In South Carolina, he spoke of the importance of gay outreach to religious voters.
I've had two core principles in my own work in defense of gay equality: supporting the simple equality of gays and straights under the law; opposing the toxins of identity politics and a balkanized gay identity. The way Obama transcends his own multiple identities, the way he both embraces his difference and yet seeks a common political discourse: this is the model that makes the most sense to me. Neither denying difference nor being defined by it is a path all minorities would be better off pursuing. And Obama's call for self-empowerment rather than self-defeating victimology is particularly apposite for gays and lesbians.
No comments:
Post a Comment