Back in 1960, when JFK was running for President, his
chances were initially considered slim, since it would be unprecedented to
elect a Roman Catholic to that office. Kennedy faced the matter squarely in a famous speech early in the primaries,
basically saying that he was running for a secular office, in which, if
elected, he would serve the People and not the Pope. People mostly shrugged and said, Sounds reasonable; after that he let the matter drop.
What he did not do was to criss-cross the country trumpeting
Catholicism, surround himself with fellow Catholics, point with pride to this,
that, and the other Catholic who had accomplished this, that, or the other
thing; and basically imply that
you should vote for him because he
was Catholic.
Nor, to his lasting credit, did candidate Obama play the
race card, despite pressure to do so.
Times have changed. From today’s Washington Post:
Clinton embraces trailblazer role
with eye on 2016
She has woven a theme of women
breaking barriers throughout almost all of her recent public remarks.
Don’t get me wrong: Just on the merits, she’s a plausible candidate; certainly the raft of circus-clowns
fielded last time around by the Republicans offer no improvement. But her sexual
self-celebration is part of a catagogic trend. (For a glimpse of that trajectory, click here.)
The deleterious effects of her penchant for
identity-politics were visible
during the 2008 campaign.
She ran a fairly snide campaign against Obama (“naïve”), and
he took it like a gentleman, later graciously offering her the plum post of
Secretary of State, the springboard to her 2016 prospects. Yet her partisans, when she lost, moped
and sulked and Just weren’t at all sure that they could vote for that man. They were the spoiled brats
of 2008; and they will be the
strutting embodiments of the culte de soi
in 2016.
[For further inspiring sagas of the distaff who clawed their way (or were offered a free pass) to the top, try here.]
[Weiteres zum Thema: Kindle; Nook.]
[Update 17 Jan 2016] Maureen Dowd on Hillary's possible "estrogren ticket":
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/17/opinion/sunday/reigning-cats-and-dogs.html
[For further inspiring sagas of the distaff who clawed their way (or were offered a free pass) to the top, try here.]
[Weiteres zum Thema: Kindle; Nook.]
[Update 17 Jan 2016] Maureen Dowd on Hillary's possible "estrogren ticket":
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/17/opinion/sunday/reigning-cats-and-dogs.html
Oh, this post demonstrates a tad bit of cluelessness. Women from 18-82 were severely disappointed that she did not become the first female president. Now all those women are waiting in anticipating anticipation for her to accomplish this feat. That majority of the human population could care less what your opinion, or mine might be.
ReplyDeleteAnd, as the African Americans say about the fight for marriage equality and their own civil rights struggle, there is no relationship between the advent of the first Catholic president and the first female president.
Indeed -- Not only does the world not care what my opinion might be: *I* do not care what my opinion might be. Opinions may be had for the asking -- a penny plain and tuppence colored. As ever, I am only making a logical point.
Delete