skip to main |
skip to sidebar
If Hillary was not gracious enough the first night she spoke and left doubt in people's minds that she wasn't supportive enough of Obama, she blew that doubt away, far far away, when she asked the delegates to put the rules aside and unanimously nominate Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee. And she did it with grace and with a big smile on her face, a genuine one, unlike the social smile that she wore while she spoke the previous night.
Later, when Bill Clinton stood on the podium and asked all the supporters of Hillary to stand behind Obama, just like the Clinton family itself was standing, he made up for, many times over, the lack of enthusiasm that was so evident in his wife's speech. And he did it in his own characteristic mesmerizing, eloquent and rousing style. Sure there have been rumors and undertones about his slights and slurs, but when a man of his stature speaks in a public forum, the public speech mutes all of the private controversies that surround him.
Actions speak louder than words, and Hillary's action on the convention floor has spoken. And now, the Clintons just need to keep that action going.
"I am Hillary Clinton. And you, my supporters have carried me this far by being behind me, with me, around me... every step of the way. And I thank you for your support. But today as I stand here, I ask you, no, I urge you, I beg you to support me once again. Support me once again to elect Barack Obama as President of the United States. I know you love me and I am asking you to do it for my sake. Do it for my sake, do it for the party's sake, do it for the country's sake. Help me elect Senator Obama to the Whitehouse.
A few months ago we were divided, but that was then and this is now. Now, we must stand united, we must stand together. Although we have differences in the details, we still believe in the same policies, we still share the same values, and we still cherish the same goals. So just like you helped me a few months ago, help me again now to elect Barack Obama and help me defeat John McCain....."
Unfortunately, that wasn't what she said. Her speech looked and sounded like a campaign speech, a stump speech. She thanked and thanked her supporters, and recalled experiences on the campaign trail, and told everyone why she ran for president and mentioned how she would have changed America. She talked about herself a lot of the time and cursorily mentioned Obama a few times. She said "I" a lot more times, than she said "you" or "we" or "Barack" or "Obama".
Yes many columnists are saying it was "red meat", "clarion call", "spell binder", "finest hour", David Gergen, Bill Schneider... they would all have us believe that it was awesome. Of course! But we were not all born yesterday. If you want an honest criticism of yourself, ask your enemy. And in this case, the "enemy" are the Republicans. Alex Castellanos, a Republican strategist paints a more honest picture.
Anyone who has applied to grad schools and has had to collect recommendations from professors, bosses and coworkers can tell you something. There are recommendations that work, and there are recommendations that don't. I have a couple personal favorites:
1. "X is a great candidate; he is intelligent, thoughtful and hardworking.... ; I enjoyed his company and I (highly) recommend him..."
2. "X was in my class (or X worked for me). Grab him!"
During her campaign she went far beyond than it was necessary to divide the people, she didn't do nearly as much to unite them back. She forgot that public office is not about your personal ambition and about what you want to do for the people but all about what the people need you to do for them.
Hillary, as Castellanos says, went down a check list and signed at the bottom, but she did so without passion and without fervor. And she kept her campaign alive for a second shot. She doesn't realize that if Barack Obama loses in this election and even if there is the slightest suspicion in the air, as there seems to be already, that Hillary Clinton was responsible then she can kiss her own ambitions goodbye.
I see a lot of resentment in the air about the medals and who is winning them. Not unexpected. I am also confused why Yahoo! Sports shows USA being in first place when China actually has more golds. I know that the number of golds is more important than the total number of medals when ranking the nations. But I suppose Yahoo! chose to change the rules. That would be an interesting debate to have with someone, since Yahoo! is an American company co-founded by a Chinese American (now the CEO of Yahoo!) who was born in Taiwan and moved to America with his parents when he was ten. However, it would be ridiculous to think that the CEO gets involved in decisions like medal counts and nation ranking!
But that's a boring thing to discuss. The age of the Chinese gymnasts is a juicier topic. Do they look very young? To my untrained eye, yes they do. But am I certified to judge age by appearance. No, I am not. However, I do think that puberty does a few things to the human body, especially noticeable in the female human body. It fills it out and gives it curves. Those curves are most definitely conspicuous by their absence on the figures of the female Chinese gymnasts. I don't know what the rules are of determining age of participating athletes but to be a fair sport, you have to follow rules. Without rules it ceases to be a sport. All is fair only in love and war. All is not fair in sports. The Olympic Committee should and must do something to determine the ages of the gymnasts. And I also think Mr Karolyi should stop complaining on national television. Yes, you made your point and we got it. Now, stop being so damn petty.
Judging is another juicy topic. How do you break a tie in gymnastics? From what I understand it is the athlete with a lower average of deductions who wins. It's an Olympic rule. And I think when we go into a competition we should understand all the rules and accept them. So did the American gymnastics team not know that this was a possibility? Why complain now? The team should have read the rules and understood them. I personally think Nastia Liukin is the finest gymnast of them all and I think two golds or two silvers should be the way to go, but I am not on the Olympic Committee. Rules are rules and once you agree to compete under those rules you shouldn't complain about them after you've lost.
Alicia Sacramone's vault is also perhaps a juicy topic. I read blogs everywhere how she was robbed by the judges. The Chinese gymnast fell on her knees and yet got a bronze, but Sacramone landed on her feet and finished fourth. Well, is anyone thinking about the fact that the vault may have separate segments, approach, form, tumbles, landing &etc. and that each segment may have difficulty levels and point values? I understand that if landing is the make or break segment of the entire routine then botching the landing should nullify all the accomplishments in the other segments. But if it is not the deciding segment then it is entirely possible for someone to fall during their landing and yet get more points by outperforming their opponents in the rest of the routine. Once again, the Olympic gymnastics team should have read the rules.
Talking of rules and judging, I don't hear any complaints about Michael Phelps winning the 100 metre butterfly. Certainly it was a close race, but everyone seems to rely on the judges' decision on this event. We all saw the photo-finish the next day and I am certainly not convinced that Čavić had not touched the wall as well. In that last frame they both seem to have touched the wall. Oh, but surely the judges know best. And if they say Phelps was first, then Phelps certainly was first. However, it was good to see that Čavić, the Serbian swimmer, gladly accepted silver without complaining after he was told the judges' final decision.
Posts
