A campaign without a Clinton is like…what, exactly?
Senator Barack Obama appears to have won the “Potomac Primary” – Maryland, Virginia and Washington, D.C. Delegates will be delivered proportionately to both Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton. Squabbles over the role and use of superdelegates continue. And Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania are now being called the firewall for Clinton that other states with votes long since counted didn’t turn out to be.
One of the reasons abusive relationships are so difficult to leave and end for good is that both parties often prefer the familiar dysfunction to the unknown of a healthy relationship.
The way in which some people describe the Clintons’ hypnotic control over the electorate might be said to parallel that familiar dysfunction. And the suggestions made by Obama of how he believes government should function and leaders should rule sound healthy.
Voters need to decide, just as a person leaving an abusive relationship must, whether they are ready to trade in the familiar but not so functional for the unknown but hopefully healthy. And this is no small judgment to make, since treatment for addiction of any type rarely succeeds at more than a 35% rate.
Do you buy this analogy? If not, why not? And if so, which do you think the voters will choose: the familiar, or the unknown?
opinions powered by SendLove.to
9 Responses to “A campaign without a Clinton is like…what, exactly?”
The family with dysfunction is called Clinton-Bush. The country is tired of both parents(dynasties) and is looking for change.
But will voters have the will to quit them? This is in part to push the envelope as to whether Independents will really stick with Obama, or end up going with McCain.
Jill, that's a very interesting post. I'm not sure I would use the analogy of an addiction or abusive relationship. There may be some aspects of sticking with what we know and the pain of making a change which are similar to addiction. But after some thought on this, I think a more appropriate analogy is, “The grass is always greener on the other side.” What I mean by that is that Clinton promises more of Clinton (which for some people is good, some bad), whereas McCain promises more of Bush (certainly a lot better than Bush in many ways). Obama is the greener grass- we've had Clinton, we've had Bush and Obama has the appeal that the grass is greener. But of course as we all know, the grass may not be greener on the other side. Even though I'm an Obama supporter, I still keep an eye out for any potential pitfalls with him.
Obama certainly makes many, many Americans feel that the grass is greener with him. Given that Obama's and Hillary's policies are more or less the same, and that Obama has some legislative accomplishments, and that they both would be able to run the country, there is not much different between O and C, except his youth, energy, oratory skills and his pan-American appeal with the promise of pulling diverse people together.
So yeah, I think Obama can get people to support him. Whether he can maintain that amazing momentum into the election, I don't know. But if he can't keep the momentum up, it will be because people are tired of this long election season. I doubt that many people would dump Obama for McCain. If people lose their interest in the election, they won't vote.
All I can say is that Barack rocks and I've already supported him since he announced (actually before), which was over a year ago. We only have nine months to go!
Hmm – I think the grass is greener might apply to long-time voters, particularly Clinton-lovers, but probably not the bulk of the youth vote – since they most likely didn't even vote for the Clintons but grew up through them. What do you think?
Otherwise, I would say that that's an apt analogy.
I'm sticking with the can't quit them thing too, though.
People gave Bill Clinton so much latitude because of so many of his traits, when the flipside of so many of those traits are absolutely deplorable. We were enablers of his, truly. And it's very hard to watch someone like him suffer – to leave him to his demons – because then we realize that we kind of contributed to making him the bad boy he was.
The worst part is that people are so willing to completely taint Hillary by association – while such suggestions about Obama are not tolerated. I think that's very unfair but again, few people will argue that, compared to Hillary, the MSM loves Obama. We can only change and affect so much.
Most voters have the will to quit them. Many of us never adopted them in the first place, and among Dem voters many prefer Obama instead.
“The family with dysfunction is called Clinton-Bush. The country is tired of both parents(dynasties) and is looking for change.”
Absolutely. This is aside from, and in addition to, frequent sentiment for an end to Business As Usual in Washington.
Yeah, I see your point on the “can't quit them thing” and agree- it's difficult to give up. And I suppose to carry that one step further (and in my mind it makes perfect sense now that you've got me thinking about it)- once one does take a deep breath and take the plunge to brush off old habits, one has a sense of relief. It's almost like a religious conversion, or to continue the addiction theme, it's like the enthusiasm someone who has struggled with addiction exhibits once they have stopped. You almost need an AA group for Obama supporters- not because they're hooked on him, but one of the ideas behind recovery is to make sure one acts responsibly and is able to maintain their newfound sobriety in a healthy fashion. I think some Obama supporters (and actually this applies to supporters of all campaigns) need to come back to a more healthy mental state. Not to dimish their energy and enthusiasm, but rather to focus that energy into healthier channels of support.
How's that? Does it even make the least bit of sense?
DLS: good comments and I couldn't agree with you more.
StockBoy – oh, absolutely. We're talking about corrections here, but of course, as DLS kind of alludes to, we've been dragged all over the place, going from one end – the Clintons, to the other – Bush doubled, that it's hard to resist the enthusiasm of an Obama. But there's no silver bullet and Obama won't be one either – to think otherwise is very, very dangerous.
Jill- yup, that's my thought too. Good topic and it certainly gave me another way to conceptualize what's going on out there in America. Thanks!