‘They’
Yesterday, my friend Robin asked me if I thought all the negative racist advertising was going to backfire for the Clintons and the Republican Party. Truthfully, I don’t know, but I certainly hope that the positive energy of the young people supporting the Obama candidacy, have helped to generate enough enthusiasm that it will overtake all the negative and fear crap. We also talked about what we call OWO4O. If you can’t guess, it means Older White Women for Obama. Apparently there are some, but you certainly wouldn’t know if by looking at the campaign—although in Pennsylvania the campaign did do better with older white people in general. We also acknowledged that there were prominent Black men and women for Hillary. Our conclusion was that there was a real opportunity for a stand-up comedy routine with one OWW4O, and one OBW4H. And no I am not going to be one of the entertainers. But seriously folks…
I listened to the Sunday morning shows with some trepidation. And I was disappointed, once again, in the trep. When talking about any subject the pundits/talking heads, refer to the news media as ‘they’. As if ‘they’ were a whole other group of individuals. But ‘they’ are them. ‘They’ have managed to bury and bring Hillary back to life. ‘They’ have forgotten that last February (only 4 months ago) Barack was not even on the radar screen. We were all still thinking John Edwards might give Hillary a contest, but Obama, “ha, ha”, we replied when it was discussed. Obama? However, ‘they’ are often ridiculous in their analysis of most actions and events. Further, ‘they’ don’t seem to read or listen to anything in it’s entirety. ‘They’ certainly didn’t read the whole text of any of Rev. Wright’s sermons. Nope, ‘they’ have chosen to quote one another instead of the actual source.
Let’s pause for a minute so I can share some important information. My new book “So You Think You Can Be President” is finally available on Amazon.com. You might think that’s a nice thing, but the reason it’s important is because last week (granted it was before the book was available), we were at somewhere around 800.000 on their list for book sales. I am happy to announce that we are now number 4 in the “Humor, Entertainment, Law and Criminals”, category. I have no idea why this is a category but let’s celebrate it because number 4 anywhere is totally excellent.
Now, getting back to OWW4O, which is funny but does not involve criminals. Why would the campaign seemingly ignore women over 50. Do they not understand that those women have the same listening ability as the women under 50. Well, maybe they need to turn the volume up on their TV’s, but they still hear the same words, and sense the same desperation. But the Obama campaign has not offered them a home. Rest assured, not all OWWr4H. Without some assurance that their issues will be some kind of priority—and remember, women are not a constituency they are 51% of the electorate – they will still cast their votes for the person who gives them a sign. And, BTW, women’s priorities do not differ from men’s. They care about health care, the economy and the war. But they also frame their conversations in terms of the impact all these things have on their families. The way we say things may be different (we like to draw pictures about a situation), but the end results are exactly the same. If Barack would just tell them that they are important—feed the female ego’s so to speak, he would be surprised by the political benefits he would reap.
Here’s what I still don’t understand. How did Obama go from being a guy with all the issues of a multiracial middle class candidate, to being an elitist. And how did Clinton go from being a very wealthy Senator from NY, to being the blue collar Annie Oakley. Neither makes sense to me. As I have said before, they are both Ivy League educated people, who have solid progressive credentials, and not much difference in policy solutions to enormous problems of national concern. How have ‘they’ reduced these two people to a sound bite. Maybe a better question is, how have we allowed these two fine candidates to be reduced to fodder for a hungry and overexposed media? The media think of themselves as the stars instead of the sources of information. It’s easy to understand when you realize their careers are at stake. The more air time they get the more money they make. That’s why it is so important for them to get interviews with prominent political people. And since that list is fairly limited of late, why you see so many repeat performances (they all appear on one another’s shows) by the TV celebrities. I can assure you, it’s not that they like getting up at 4am, staying on the air 24/7 and spending the days listening to themselves blather—it’s all about air time, money and renewing their contracts. It’s why one day they are extolling the virtues of one candidate and the next day—maybe even the next hour, they are reporting the candidate’s inevitable demise. ‘They’ have to have something to say in order to get paid. But we don’t have to believe what they say. We don’t even have to listen—although, I admit I do watch for the entertainment, not news, value.
Finally, I love the contest but I am tired of the campaign strategists speaking from the same script – not unlike the pundits. What a bore. Wouldn’t it be great if they would just call each other “big fat pig snot” and respond with “double back to you whatever you say to me” and then move on to talk about how their candidates are going to make the planet a better place for ourselves and our families. Or as ‘we’
said in a song “We Are the World”… now deal with it!
