On the Blogs...

Comment at The Trail.

WHAT'S IN A WORD? "UNITY" VS. "LEADERSHIP"

The lack of respect shown of Clinton and her supporters continues with the crude portrayals of us as "holdouts" and criticism as to why we're not "unifying" with Obama.

If a chunk of the base won't go to a leader, it's usually considered a leadership issue, not a "unity" problem. Given all of Obama's snubbing of Clinton, and all the work it's taken just to force him to keep with traditions for the minimum gestures of unity (helping retire the campaign debt of the runner up in a close race and permitting a nomination and roll call), it's clear that Obama's personal animosity and disrespect for Clinton and her supporters is more important to him than unity. That means it's a leadership issue.

"... it is usually the job of the party nominee to build unity once a vanquished rival has conceded and made the right gestures. Unless the loser happens to be a woman"

Clinton's Thankless Job - Marie Cocco, Indianapolis Star
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/clinton_blamed_no_matter_what.html

It's a biased and socially impoverished commentator who tells sections of a disrespected and unsupported group, to "show unity" and get behind the leader. The operative word isn't "unity", which is a word that projects the responsibility for a failure of leadership onto those who fail to unite. The operative word is "leadership", the first rule of which is that the prospective leader must induce people to follow him.

What we're seeing isn't a failure to "unify" but a "leadership" failure. The disrespectful signals and snubs that Obama and his supporters constantly send out, that are critical toward the Clintons and her supporters, and that reinforce a growing consensus that he holds a personal animosity and grudge toward her, is a failure of Obama's prospective "leadership", not a failure of her followers to show "unity".

Posted by: AsperGirl | August 26, 2008 8:22 AM