Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Hamlet's Soliloquy

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 02:02 PM
Original message
Hamlet's Soliloquy
{1} To be or not to be, that is the question;
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,
And by opposing, end them.
--Hamlet

There have been a few interesting threads in DU:GD-P regarding how Senator Barack Obama can best respond to some of the slings and arrows being aimed at him from the Hillary Clinton campaign staff. This issue is of particular interest in light of the increasing attacks by former President Bill Clinton.

After Barack Obama delivered the word at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, I can remember one particular DU discussion thread. On it, I wrote that I was reminded of a story that Malcolm X had told years earlier. The convention was being held at the FleetCenter in Boston (which I believe is now known as the Banknorth Garden), not far from where Malcolm had spent time.

"I was the invited speaker at the Harvard Law School Forum," Malcolm noted on page 293 of his autobiography. "I happened to glance through a window. Abruptly, I realized that I was looking in the direction of the apartment house that was my old burglary gang’s hideout."

And on page 387, Malcolm says, "My greatest lack has been, I believe, that I don’t have the kind of academic education I wish I had been able to get – to have been a lawyer, perhaps. I do believe that I might have made a good lawyer."

My feeling in 2004, upon listening to Barack Obama, was that I had heard something similar to what a Harvard educated attorney named Malcolm might have said to this nation. Four years later, fully aware that a post about Shakespeare and the 2008 democratic primary is almost sure to sink to the bottom of the angry DU debates, I thought I’d still try this.

{2} "I do not know
Why yet I live to say ‘this thing’s to do,’
Sith I cause, and will, and strength, and means
To do’t. Examples gross as earth exhort me."
--Hamlet


During the 2004 campaign, Senator John Kerry seemed to hesitate before responding to the slings and arrows of a group known as the Swift Boat Liars. At that time, I compared him to Hamlet, and suggested that he should read Minister Malcolm X’s take on this issue from a speech at the Harvard Law School. Other DUers have a variety of opinions on the issue today, just as they did four years ago. I consider it a valuable example for Senator Obama to consider as he decides how best to respond to the charges being made by former President Clinton.

It is important to recognize that this lesson can be applied to both a primary and general election campaign. In the 1968 republican primary, NYS Governor Nelson Rockefeller earned the sobriquet "The Hamlet of Fifth Avenue" as a result of his politically fatal inability to make a firm decision. (John K. Hutchens’ Book of the Month Club review of "An American Melodrama: The Presidential Campaign of 1968"; 1969)

Rockefeller was being advised by two men: Emmett John Hughes, a democrat who wrote speeches for Eisenhower in the White House (see his classic "The Ordeal of Power"); and George Hinman, who had been an attorney in Binghamton, NY, a few miles away from where I live. (One of my uncles was Rockefeller’s head of security when he traveled outside of Albany.)

Richard Nixon, the former vice president and political machine technician, made bold moves in the ’68 republican primary. Rockefeller hesitated and was left behind.

(3) "Why now, blow wind, swell billow, and swim bark!
The storm is up, and all is on the hazard."
--Julius Casear; (William Shakespeare)

There was a DU:GD-P thread today reminded me of Archie Epps’ classiv "Malcolm X: Speeches at Harvard." Epps notes that those with communication skills use imagery to plant ideas in the minds of those in their audience. Certainly, this is true of what President Clinton is attempting to do with his attacks on Barack Obama. The use of these images has been described as an "act in which the code of names by which (we) simplify or interpret reality. These names shape our relationship with our fellows. They prepare us for some function and against others, for or against the person representing these functions. Call a man a villain, and you have the choice of either attacking or cringing." (Kenneth Burke; Attitudes Toward History; Boston; 1961; page 4)

John Illo compared Malcolm X’s speaking ability to "poeticized logic, logic revised by the creative and critical imagination recalling original ideas." (John Illo; The Rhetoric of Malcolm X; Columbia University Forum; 1966; page 5) I’ll close with a single paragraph of Malcolm’s December 16, 1964 speech at Harvard:

"There was another man back in history whom I read about once, an old friend of mine whose name was Hamlet, who confronted, in a sense, the same thing our people are confronting here in America. Hamlet was debating whether ‘To be or not to be’ – that was the question. He was trying to decide whether it was ‘nobler in the mind to suffer --peacefully-- the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,’ or whether it was nobler ‘to take up arms’ and oppose them. I think his little soliloquy answers itself. As long as you sit around suffering the slings and arrows and are afraid to use some slings and arrows yourself, you’ll continue to suffer." (Epps; page 175)

If Barack Obama fails to respond to President Clinton’s attacks, his opponents will define him as "weak" in the public’s mind, as so defined by Ken Burke 47 years ago. And if Senator Obama merely reacts on a tit-for-tat level, he will be defined as an angry politician. Instead, he needs to point out the errors in Bill Clinton’s charges, and define them as part of the former president’s pattern of distorting the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 02:10 PM
Response to Original message
1. I think making a 'campaign' of pulling our former Democratic president down is folly as well
in our Democratic primary. He has to show that he's focused squarely on the voters' concerns, as he rebuts the charges. He can't do that if all the air is taken up by the inevitable squabble resulting from such an all-out attack as you describe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DarthDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 02:10 PM
Response to Original message
2. K & R

From a Clinton supporter . . . good post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 02:17 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. I like
Senator Hillary Clinton. I think Bill Clinton was a good president. However, I think that he has gone a bit too far with some of the things that he has said in recent weeks, and I think he could cause divisions in the democratic party that will harm all of us in the fall. I think that is equally true if Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama is the nominee, and also true (though to a lesser extent) if John Edwards is the nominee.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 02:11 PM
Response to Original message
3. One of the better posts I've read.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 02:21 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. Thank you.
I think we all benefit from the democratic party being recognized as the party of strength and logical thinking. And I am particularly fond of what Illo called "poeticized logic." I think that is what so many journalists were noting in Barack Obama's speeches.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 02:14 PM
Response to Original message
4. Well put.
I believe that your conclusion - which I agree with - is what Obama has been trying to do, but the spin is on that he's just attacking. He has repeatedly said "that is not what I said" on several points, then tried to re-state how it was wrong, and had been accused, in doing that, of spinning himself.

Unfortunately, that doesn't come across in the media in succinct sound bites.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. In Many Ways He's Being Damned
by editing
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 02:24 PM
Response to Reply #4
9. Right.
Exactly. It can be difficult for a professor of Constitutional law to translate his message from his strong point -- which is a longer speech or discussion -- into the shorter sound bites used on the news and those things being presented as debates.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 02:20 PM
Response to Original message
6. Damn Fine Piece
Edited on Thu Jan-24-08 02:20 PM by Me.
It isn't going to get any easier for Obama. In fact should he get the nom, the Cons will do their best to decimate him and I guarantee it will get very ugly indeed. This is the preliminary bout and the best of him needs to show up for the occasion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 02:26 PM
Response to Reply #6
10. True.
It will get uglier no matter who the nominee is. This is why we, as a party, need to appreciate the difference between "reacting" and "responding" to the republican attacks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hutzpa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 02:39 PM
Response to Reply #6
16. Did you understand the post,
mainly H20 is focusing on the party being torn apart by these unfounded
attack, yet giving advice on how to counter these attack without
making it personal, because what that does, is...it gives the Gopers
leeway to discredit our candidates more, be it JE, BO and HRC.

The later being the worse of the lot.

:think:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. I Believe He Is Also Addressing The Matter Of Vacillation
Edited on Thu Jan-24-08 02:56 PM by Me.
Placing one's self in a weakened position by not adroitly responding to the attacks. That was the point, I believe, of the Rockefeller reference.

Edited to add: You will note that I said the very best of him. One does not have to get down and dirty to respond effectively to an attack.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robbedvoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 02:31 PM
Response to Original message
11. Kerry vs Swiftboaters - GE issue - AGAINST GOP. A bit different
It seems Kerry is not afraid to go against other Democrats - only GOP-ers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 02:37 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. I respectfully disagree.
I think that the part about Nelson Rockefeller indicates that vacillation is as poor a tactic in a primary as in a general election. More, it would seem a curious concept -- that an attack that is a distortion of the facts requires a different response in a primary than in a general election. I would suggest that in both cases, the response should be to tell the truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dogmudgeon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 02:32 PM
Response to Original message
12. He's already looking weak
Nearly every one of Obama's supporters are claiming that the Clintons are ten-foot-tall evil giants and Obama is a weak little lamb.

Do you have any idea how badly this will backfire?

People are used to hearing the Clintons being described in the most hyperbolic of hateful terms. Team Obama is doing the same thing. People will tune out what they perceive to be a "nostalgic" replay of the bile of the 1990s. If Obama does "define (Bill Clinton's statements) as part of the former president’s pattern of distorting the truth", people will associate him with Newt Gingrich. And Obama will open himself up to the same charge of distorting the truth.

Rebuttals are best made as coolly as possible; delivered without the heat of anger, they will deprive both Clintons of an easy-to-use "weapon". Obama has already lost his cool a few times. He should strive to make them his last.

At the same time, the complaints being made for the "benefit" of Obama will set the image in stone that Barack Obama is too weak to deal with a normally-tough primary campaign. THAT is a distortion that Obama supporters will not be able to blame on anyone other than themselves.

Obama's best bet would be to return to the persuasive speeches he excels at delivering. And after the internecine fire is put out, the candidates can do some real debating about policy and planning.

--p!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hutzpa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 02:47 PM
Response to Reply #12
17. I take it
you are one of the few...I hope, who thinks this way,

suggesting Obama does nothing and Hillary continues to
allow Bill to attack Obama is a meme in my part,

because of who Obama is, damn if he does and damn if
he doesn't, so, he is expected to just sit and take
all the vile and in the process say 'Thank You'
are freaking kidding...tell me if thats not suppression
in the highest manner.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 03:13 PM
Response to Reply #12
19. I'm not nearly
as interested in the opinions of the Clinton and/or Obama supporters on this issue, as I am in the views of those who are not in either camp. I think that is who he needs to reach with his message.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jpgray Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 02:37 PM
Response to Original message
13. The soliloquy is about the choice between suffering life or committing suicide
Edited on Thu Jan-24-08 02:50 PM by jpgray
Or, as Schopenhauer put it, achieving complete non-existence, "a consummation devoutly to be wished." I doubt the thrust of your argument here is that Obama should commit political suicide or attempt to cease all political existence to end the suffering of political life, and I doubt you believe opposing Hillary's criticism would have that effect on him. Misuse of this bit of Shakespeare as some bold call to aggressive combative action against one's enemies has always mystified me--it's a simplification of literature for demagoguery, and this world could do without any more of that. I agree with what I assume to be your argument, however. Obama must respond carefully to remain consistent with the themes of his campaign, but he certainly does need a response.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
David Zephyr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 02:37 PM
Response to Original message
14. K&R.
Consider this:

Barack is debating whether or not to respond to the lies and distortions by Bill.

Bill Clinton retaliated without hesitation or pause or reflection with lies about the truth that was being asserted against him regarding his shabby behavior.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #14
21. On another thread,
I said that I tend to view the democratic party as a large extended family. In normal circumstances, extended families can get along, even when individual members hold very different opinions. They will get together for reunions, and discuss and debate all types of issues.

But when one or more people introduce racism and/or sexism (or any of the other related "-isms"), it creates tensions and hard feelings. Soon some people will go out of their way to avoid sitting near or talking to the offensive family member. And, in time, individuals and groups will avoid attending the family functions.

This summer, we do not need to have our extended family splintered by the increasingly crude behaviors of some of our democratic family. We need the entire family to participate in the campaign between now and the fall. And come November, we will face a difficult fight if our family does not show up to vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
autorank Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 03:13 PM
Response to Original message
20. Great post. What a treat! K*R
Edited on Thu Jan-24-08 03:15 PM by autorank
I hope Obama folks get this to him.

He's hanging in there for the moment since he fired back and he showed real emotion when Hillary was
so aggressive.

What you've presented is, at the least, winning advice. He responds in a set piece environment, maybe
in front of an Irish Rose bar (forgive me) and then delivers a meta critique of Bill, which raises his
stature tremendously. If done properly ( and he'd pull it off) it would be a strong right hook.

The other path would be to deliver the same critique, compressed, going for a Joseph Welch moment,
"At long last..."). That would be a jab, right cross combination that would win him the nomination I
suspect.

Having said all that, I'm not liking any of them much lately, save Kucinich. They are in a unique
position to discuss plans, issues, directions in concrete terms. Issues come in as a rhetorical
device by Edwards saying, "We're not talking about..." Wait a minute, just talk about it. I'm not
going to watch people have cat fights or listen to them with any seriousness when they "talk about
talking." The drama is getting better though. What's going on with Bill Clinton is fascinating.

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 04:40 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. I think that if
the democratic party is going to make progress, it is going to have to come in small steps. The party at the top levels in Washington lacks the ability to make medium steps, much less large ones, in the right direction.

At the same time, the country is facing problems that require those large steps in a different direction.

In the preface of Epps' book on Malcolm, he writes that Martin Luther King, Jr. viewed "history as the record of suffering, endurance, and change. It was also a history of courage, and a magnanimus exercise of restraint. King accepted Hegel's view of history as a dialectical process of progress and growth through suffering. But the dialectical idea for king, the notion of the struggle, was also taken from Gandhi and Thoreau, especially from the latter's famous essay, 'Civil Disobedience.' King believed in struggle, in a kind of war, but in a war, in Gandhi's words, 'without violence.' In King's view of history, the large mass of men and women must be led by an extraordinary leader, one with prophetic vision ...."

I do not think we have such a leader in Washington, DC today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 06:37 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. Irish Rose Bar?
Sorry about Kucinich
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. I think that
William Claude Dunkenfield's most recent incarnation inhabits a stool there.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Me. Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 09:25 PM
Response to Reply #26
30. You Almost Had Me
'I never vote for anyone; I always vote against'

'I am free of all prejudice. I hate everyone equally'

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 09:29 PM
Response to Reply #30
32. "Anything worth having
is worth cheating for."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 06:55 PM
Response to Original message
24. You're going to get this kick...
because of Shakespeare.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. Thank you.
My younger son is here with his SO. She recently asked him if I had information on the property her father owns in Otsego County, NY. The historic mansion that the property was once known for was a wedding present for a local lady, when she married a Shakespearean actor from NYC. His father had signed the Declaration of Independence.

Many of the good things in life are connected to Shakespeare.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CatWoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 08:49 PM
Response to Original message
27. K&R
you have to answer the b.s. -- no matter how inconsequential one might think the b.s. is.

that was Kerry's mistake.

:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 08:53 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. Right.
A couple of DUers think that I am advocating something aggressive or confrontational. I am simply suggesting that Senator Obama tell the truth in order to contrast it with some of the distortions (aka lies) being told about him. It is sad but true that a politician telling the truth would shock and offend some people. But it seems worth the risk.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CatWoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #28
31. one doesn't have to be neither aggressive, nor confrontational
to answer b.s.

we do it every day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
loveangelc Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-24-08 08:55 PM
Response to Original message
29. :-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 06:21 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC