Tonight Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama debated in the Kodak Theatre in front of about a gazillion Hollywood stars.
After watching all of it, and a part of last night's Republican debate, I can say with conviction that:
Republicans look like the party of the past and Democrats look like the party of the future.
Republicans sound like the party of the past and Democrats sound like the party of the future.
Republican ideas have run their course and been found not up to the task of solving the nation's problems.
Democratic ideas are squarely addressing the nations's problems with innovative and grand ideas.
If the voters put another Republican in the White House come November, it will only be because they are brain dead.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
On the war
One thing I hope the CNN debate tonight spends some time on is how each of the remaining Democratic candidates felt about the war in Iraq in 2003, how they assess it now, and what each of them plans to do about it once they are in office.
Their presumed opponent, John McCain, has an unambiguous position: he will stay in Iraq indefinitely or for 100 years, whichever comes first.
So the Democratic nominee had better have a clear and precise position to contrast with McCain's.
The Democrats, in this election, must be the antiwar party. As sixty percent of Americans still want us out of Iraq, and nearly seventy percent now say beginning the war was wrong, there is a huge constituency out there waiting to vote for a real antiwar candidate.
Obama opposed the war from the beginning, and would begin removing troops immediately. Here's his position from his campaign website:
Hillary voted for the authorization to invade Iraq, has not directly admitted her vote was wrong, and says she would convene military leaders to discuss beginning withdrawal within sixty days. From her website:
It seems to me there's a lot more wiggle room in her plan, a lot more fuzzy language. Perhaps that's what is needed in a commander in chief. Perhaps we also want a commander in chief who can't admit a mistake. That's obviously what we have now.
Maybe Obama makes promises that he can't keep. Maybe that's his inexperience. On the other hand, at least he's direct and firm in what he says.
So tonight I'd really like to hear more from these candidates. I want them to give more substance to these brief statements, and I'd like to see Hillary pressed once again on her war vote and how she looks at it now.
If the Democrats don't have a presidential nominee who can be clear and firm in a debate with each other on their Iraq position, how on earth will they do it against McCain, who couldn't be more clear?
McCain's views may not be in sync with the majority of Americans, but most Republicans who didn't agree with him on the war still voted for him in Florida. They saw the clarity, confidence and strength he exudes on this issue.
Our candidates must show the voters that same clarity and confidence of belief.
Their presumed opponent, John McCain, has an unambiguous position: he will stay in Iraq indefinitely or for 100 years, whichever comes first.
So the Democratic nominee had better have a clear and precise position to contrast with McCain's.
The Democrats, in this election, must be the antiwar party. As sixty percent of Americans still want us out of Iraq, and nearly seventy percent now say beginning the war was wrong, there is a huge constituency out there waiting to vote for a real antiwar candidate.
Obama opposed the war from the beginning, and would begin removing troops immediately. Here's his position from his campaign website:
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.
Hillary voted for the authorization to invade Iraq, has not directly admitted her vote was wrong, and says she would convene military leaders to discuss beginning withdrawal within sixty days. From her website:
The most important part of Hillary's plan is the first: to end our military engagement in Iraq's civil war and immediately start bringing our troops home. As president, one of Hillary's first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration.
It seems to me there's a lot more wiggle room in her plan, a lot more fuzzy language. Perhaps that's what is needed in a commander in chief. Perhaps we also want a commander in chief who can't admit a mistake. That's obviously what we have now.
Maybe Obama makes promises that he can't keep. Maybe that's his inexperience. On the other hand, at least he's direct and firm in what he says.
So tonight I'd really like to hear more from these candidates. I want them to give more substance to these brief statements, and I'd like to see Hillary pressed once again on her war vote and how she looks at it now.
If the Democrats don't have a presidential nominee who can be clear and firm in a debate with each other on their Iraq position, how on earth will they do it against McCain, who couldn't be more clear?
McCain's views may not be in sync with the majority of Americans, but most Republicans who didn't agree with him on the war still voted for him in Florida. They saw the clarity, confidence and strength he exudes on this issue.
Our candidates must show the voters that same clarity and confidence of belief.
National Rorschach Test
Every national election teaches us something, not only about the candidates, but also about ourselves as voters and, sadly, about the weaknesses of modern democracy.
The 2000 election taught us that in an evenly divided electorate, a third party candidacy can enable the winner of the popular vote to be the loser. We also learned that a ruthless campaign manager/strategist can figure out how to "win" an election, even when his candidate loses the popular vote. And, of course, we learned that it is possible to steal an election if you are bold enough, if your brother is governor of a crucial state and can scrub the voting rolls, and if you have campaign staff thugs who are willing to pose as ordinary people demanding that a legal recount be stopped.
In 2004 we learned that fear, partly based a real threat, but stoked by lies and exaggerations, can determine the outcome of an election and that "independent" groups can spread lies about a candidate they oppose and sink that candidate's chances. We learned, in other words, that you can lie your way into the White House.
In this election, there are already lessons. Just yesterday we learned that "poverty" will never be the most important issue in a campaign (the corporate media will not allow it to be) and that the candidates who survive in a primary are always the ones with the most money and the most media fascination. We also learned that strategy counts, you can't skip the early primaries and expect to win, and fear isn't the issue it was four years ago. Invoking 9/11 and Islamofascism simply isn't enough to get you the nomination. Even though John Mccain continues to talk about terrorism and Islamofascism, exit polls in Florida revealed that the voters who cared most about the economy as well as the voters who want us out of Iraq cast the most votes for John MCain. So Republicans are voting for McCain not because of his desire to stay in Iraq indefinitely, but in spite of it. Hence, another lesson: voters choose candidates for reasons other than the issues.
What does this mean for the Democratic primary? Who knows? The Democratic electorate seems evenly divided between support for the first woman candidate and the first black candidate. Reading the blogs, and especially the comments by ordinary citizens at the end of the blogs, indicates that this primary is one big Rorschach test, with voters seeing what they want to see in their candidate, or as Bill Clinton says "In the primary, you fall in love with a candidate."
Some people have fallen in love with Hillary Clinton because, after sixteen years, they believe she is a known commodity, or because she is a woman, because they believe she will advocate for woman's issues much better than a man, because they actually want Bill back in the White House, because they trust she can be as good a commander in chief as any man, because she is tough enough to stomp on Republicans. They see Obama as too untested, no matter how good he sounds.
Others have fallen in love with Barack Obama. They like that he is a fresh, new face, that he doesn't have sixteen years of baggage, political loyalties, and corporate interests to define him. They contrast his strategy of uniting diverse groups of people to build a large majority including non-Democrats, in his campaign, rather than pulling together specific interest groups to eke out a 51% victory. They like listening to him, and being inspired by him, and they think those are just as important in getting the country to unite behind a president as are years of experience and toughness.
In the end, what I am learning is that in the Democratic primary voters are divided between trusting someone they know from the past, because of her intelligence and in spite of her baggage, and trusting someone less known, whose oratory, confidence and intelligence inspires them.
How this will all come down on Super Tuesday, is anybody's guess.
The 2000 election taught us that in an evenly divided electorate, a third party candidacy can enable the winner of the popular vote to be the loser. We also learned that a ruthless campaign manager/strategist can figure out how to "win" an election, even when his candidate loses the popular vote. And, of course, we learned that it is possible to steal an election if you are bold enough, if your brother is governor of a crucial state and can scrub the voting rolls, and if you have campaign staff thugs who are willing to pose as ordinary people demanding that a legal recount be stopped.
In 2004 we learned that fear, partly based a real threat, but stoked by lies and exaggerations, can determine the outcome of an election and that "independent" groups can spread lies about a candidate they oppose and sink that candidate's chances. We learned, in other words, that you can lie your way into the White House.
In this election, there are already lessons. Just yesterday we learned that "poverty" will never be the most important issue in a campaign (the corporate media will not allow it to be) and that the candidates who survive in a primary are always the ones with the most money and the most media fascination. We also learned that strategy counts, you can't skip the early primaries and expect to win, and fear isn't the issue it was four years ago. Invoking 9/11 and Islamofascism simply isn't enough to get you the nomination. Even though John Mccain continues to talk about terrorism and Islamofascism, exit polls in Florida revealed that the voters who cared most about the economy as well as the voters who want us out of Iraq cast the most votes for John MCain. So Republicans are voting for McCain not because of his desire to stay in Iraq indefinitely, but in spite of it. Hence, another lesson: voters choose candidates for reasons other than the issues.
What does this mean for the Democratic primary? Who knows? The Democratic electorate seems evenly divided between support for the first woman candidate and the first black candidate. Reading the blogs, and especially the comments by ordinary citizens at the end of the blogs, indicates that this primary is one big Rorschach test, with voters seeing what they want to see in their candidate, or as Bill Clinton says "In the primary, you fall in love with a candidate."
Some people have fallen in love with Hillary Clinton because, after sixteen years, they believe she is a known commodity, or because she is a woman, because they believe she will advocate for woman's issues much better than a man, because they actually want Bill back in the White House, because they trust she can be as good a commander in chief as any man, because she is tough enough to stomp on Republicans. They see Obama as too untested, no matter how good he sounds.
Others have fallen in love with Barack Obama. They like that he is a fresh, new face, that he doesn't have sixteen years of baggage, political loyalties, and corporate interests to define him. They contrast his strategy of uniting diverse groups of people to build a large majority including non-Democrats, in his campaign, rather than pulling together specific interest groups to eke out a 51% victory. They like listening to him, and being inspired by him, and they think those are just as important in getting the country to unite behind a president as are years of experience and toughness.
In the end, what I am learning is that in the Democratic primary voters are divided between trusting someone they know from the past, because of her intelligence and in spite of her baggage, and trusting someone less known, whose oratory, confidence and intelligence inspires them.
How this will all come down on Super Tuesday, is anybody's guess.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Real feminists think for themselves
Throughout our lives, we form opinions on a multiplicity of issues. At first, it is typical for our views to reflect those of our parents. Over time, as we are exposed to other views, and reflect on our own life experiences, our views evolve.
For example, we hear our parents' political views throughout our childhood and adolescence, and agree with them until we go off to live on our own, and either hear other views or just begin to experience life differently. Sometimes we adopt new views permanently, or sometimes just try them on temporarily before returning to our parents' views. Other times we may reject both and develop our own unique perspective.
The important thing is that at some point in our adult lives we live according to what we truly believe, neither because our parents believe it, nor because we still feel the need to rebel against them by adopting a contrary belief.
My husband and I grew up in ultra conservative families. Up until our early twenties, we were, like our families, conservative in our political, religious and cultural views. We went to church each Sunday and accepted all the dogmas of our church. We were conservative Republicans and couldn't understand why anyone could be a Democrat. We didn't oppose the war in Vietnam, even as protests surrounded us on our college campus. We thought a woman's place was in the home, not in the office.
While our fellow students didn't really change us, having adult experiences and learning to think for ourselves did. The first break with my parents' political views came in 1968, after the deaths of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy, when for the first time I really paid attention to the idealism and the fight against injustice represented by these two men. I turned 21 that year and it was the first time I could vote. Had RFK not been assassinated, I would have enthusiastically voted for him, much to my father's dismay. Instead I voted for Hubert Humphrey, only to see him lose to the first man to ever have to resign the presidency. I was still a registered Republican, not yet ready to sever my loyalty to my family, but eventually that changed too.
As we moved into the seventies and feminism arrived in full force, I was open to what people like Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan had to say. Even as people in my family and church disparaged "women's libbers" as crazy people, I understood what Friedan was saying about "the problem that has no name." I had that problem. I had a college degree and was raising three children and I thought I would go out of my mind. Motherhood wasn't my strong suit and I felt my brain cells were dying with every diaper I changed.
Though I no longer call myself a feminist (mainly because I believe we are in a different phase now, a post-feminist phase in which we must go beyond agitation to collaboration) I have remained an advocate of women's rights and am always somewhat sad when I encounter women who criticize the women's movement and use derogatory and demeaning terms like "women's libbers." I always ask them if they don't believe women are equal to men or shouldn't have the same rights as men. I remind them that they would not have the opportunities they have and their fantastic paychecks if the women's movement had never happened.
Sure, there have always been aspects of the women's movement I have had a hard time with. While I don't believe abortion should be criminalized, for instance, I simply can't approve of the radical pro-choice stance some women's groups take. As a mother of four children, I think abortion is always a tragedy, and I don't like the way some political groups treat it as if it just another form of birth control. I know this makes me out of line with other feminists, but remember what I said about the importance of developing your own views.
In general, though, I believe the goals of feminism have been admirable ones, and ones that have brought freedom and opportunities to women. The work is not finished, of course, and won't be until discrimination ends and equal pay is given for equal work, but once in a while I am ashamed of what some feminists do and yesterday was one of those days.
Yesterday, I read the statement by Marcia Pappas, the president of the New York chapter of NOW, slamming Ted Kennedy for his endorsement of Barack Obama and accusing him of "the ultimate betrayal." As I read the statement, it became clear that she felt Ted Kennedy owed women an endorsement of Hillary Clinton, and that anything short of that was unacceptable. She accused him of "abandonment," of "choosing the new guy over us." She sounded like a woman scorned, someone whose husband or lover just cheated on her. She also said that by supporting Obama, Kennedy was completely abandoning women's issues and that furthermore, he couldn't handle the idea of a woman president.
In other words, the only way Kennedy could have proven his dedication to women's issues was to have endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. Everything else he has done for women in all his years in the Senate simply doesn't count.
Whoa! This is the kind of woman that gives feminism a bad name. This woman is effectively saying: "We've waited long enough. We're tired of male presidents and now that we have found a strong woman, we demand that you support her. We don't care if she loses in the general election, or that she is riding her husband's coat tails, or that she supported the war, or that she is a terribly divisive figure, we demand that you support her or everything you have done up until now is a sham." (Boy will she be in for a surprise if and when Hillary Clinton becomes president and doesn't give in to all her demands.)
I thought feminism was about men and women being equal, not about demanding that a woman be given a free pass. I thought feminists would want a woman who got to the presidential nomination on her own merits, not because she is married to a former president, is at least partly running on his record, and sends him out in the campaign to be her hit man. I thought we had gotten past hating men, and blaming them for everything that has ever gone wrong in the lives of women.
There was a time for anger in the seventies. A lot of us were angry then because we were realizing that the unhappiness many of us felt was because we were stuck in the restrictive roles society set down for us. We woke up to the injustice and did something. We demanded entrance into colleges and occupations that banned us. We demanded better pay, and child care so we could go to work. We got elected to office. We educated our husbands and depending on their reactions, either divorced them or joined with them in moving our marriages to a different and more fulfilling place. And most of us got over our anger and started to like men again. We decided that it was better to work together and to appreciate our differences, not just insist we be treated exactly the same.
Sure, there are still some "sexist pigs," (as we used to call them) out there, but Ted Kennedy isn't one of them, and for Marcia Pappas to attack him when he made a decision that he is entitled to make, and that he sincerely believes is the best decision for women as well as men, not to mention the country, is just stupid.
Her letter wasn't the statement of a disappointed or frustrated woman who is passionately supporting her candidate. It was the cry of a deranged women, whose hatred of men simmers continually below the surface.
Feminism is not and should never be about hating men. Nor should it be about electing a female president regardless of who the female nominee is.
I have considered myself a supporter of woman's rights for many years, far more years than Marcia Pappas I suspect, but I am also a woman who thinks for herself, and doesn't live in a binary world of good and evil, black and white, and male and female. Ted Kennedy supports Barack Obama, as many of us do, precisely because Obama is a candidate who transcends such a binary world.
In my twenties, when I identified strongly with feminists and believed in the causes they fought for, I might have supported a candidate like Hillary Clinton just because she was a woman. As I was awakening to the discrimination against women, I went through my own phase of anger against the male establishment and thought we needed to do bold things and stand together. But times have changed and so have I. Now I believe our best hope is to have a fair contest between male and female candidates, with politicians and citizens, men and women, free to support whatever candidate best represents their views. I no longer believe a woman candidate deserves the support of all women and all liberal male politicians. To the contrary, I think that demeans the woman candidate.
I was glad to see the national organization distance itself from its New York chapter because I think the statement of Marcia Pappas disgraces us all.
She owes Ted Kennedy and all women an apology for her ridiculous outburst, which does nothing to help the cause of women.
Real feminists, male and female, make decisions based on more than gender.
For example, we hear our parents' political views throughout our childhood and adolescence, and agree with them until we go off to live on our own, and either hear other views or just begin to experience life differently. Sometimes we adopt new views permanently, or sometimes just try them on temporarily before returning to our parents' views. Other times we may reject both and develop our own unique perspective.
The important thing is that at some point in our adult lives we live according to what we truly believe, neither because our parents believe it, nor because we still feel the need to rebel against them by adopting a contrary belief.
My husband and I grew up in ultra conservative families. Up until our early twenties, we were, like our families, conservative in our political, religious and cultural views. We went to church each Sunday and accepted all the dogmas of our church. We were conservative Republicans and couldn't understand why anyone could be a Democrat. We didn't oppose the war in Vietnam, even as protests surrounded us on our college campus. We thought a woman's place was in the home, not in the office.
While our fellow students didn't really change us, having adult experiences and learning to think for ourselves did. The first break with my parents' political views came in 1968, after the deaths of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy, when for the first time I really paid attention to the idealism and the fight against injustice represented by these two men. I turned 21 that year and it was the first time I could vote. Had RFK not been assassinated, I would have enthusiastically voted for him, much to my father's dismay. Instead I voted for Hubert Humphrey, only to see him lose to the first man to ever have to resign the presidency. I was still a registered Republican, not yet ready to sever my loyalty to my family, but eventually that changed too.
As we moved into the seventies and feminism arrived in full force, I was open to what people like Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan had to say. Even as people in my family and church disparaged "women's libbers" as crazy people, I understood what Friedan was saying about "the problem that has no name." I had that problem. I had a college degree and was raising three children and I thought I would go out of my mind. Motherhood wasn't my strong suit and I felt my brain cells were dying with every diaper I changed.
Though I no longer call myself a feminist (mainly because I believe we are in a different phase now, a post-feminist phase in which we must go beyond agitation to collaboration) I have remained an advocate of women's rights and am always somewhat sad when I encounter women who criticize the women's movement and use derogatory and demeaning terms like "women's libbers." I always ask them if they don't believe women are equal to men or shouldn't have the same rights as men. I remind them that they would not have the opportunities they have and their fantastic paychecks if the women's movement had never happened.
Sure, there have always been aspects of the women's movement I have had a hard time with. While I don't believe abortion should be criminalized, for instance, I simply can't approve of the radical pro-choice stance some women's groups take. As a mother of four children, I think abortion is always a tragedy, and I don't like the way some political groups treat it as if it just another form of birth control. I know this makes me out of line with other feminists, but remember what I said about the importance of developing your own views.
In general, though, I believe the goals of feminism have been admirable ones, and ones that have brought freedom and opportunities to women. The work is not finished, of course, and won't be until discrimination ends and equal pay is given for equal work, but once in a while I am ashamed of what some feminists do and yesterday was one of those days.
Yesterday, I read the statement by Marcia Pappas, the president of the New York chapter of NOW, slamming Ted Kennedy for his endorsement of Barack Obama and accusing him of "the ultimate betrayal." As I read the statement, it became clear that she felt Ted Kennedy owed women an endorsement of Hillary Clinton, and that anything short of that was unacceptable. She accused him of "abandonment," of "choosing the new guy over us." She sounded like a woman scorned, someone whose husband or lover just cheated on her. She also said that by supporting Obama, Kennedy was completely abandoning women's issues and that furthermore, he couldn't handle the idea of a woman president.
In other words, the only way Kennedy could have proven his dedication to women's issues was to have endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. Everything else he has done for women in all his years in the Senate simply doesn't count.
Whoa! This is the kind of woman that gives feminism a bad name. This woman is effectively saying: "We've waited long enough. We're tired of male presidents and now that we have found a strong woman, we demand that you support her. We don't care if she loses in the general election, or that she is riding her husband's coat tails, or that she supported the war, or that she is a terribly divisive figure, we demand that you support her or everything you have done up until now is a sham." (Boy will she be in for a surprise if and when Hillary Clinton becomes president and doesn't give in to all her demands.)
I thought feminism was about men and women being equal, not about demanding that a woman be given a free pass. I thought feminists would want a woman who got to the presidential nomination on her own merits, not because she is married to a former president, is at least partly running on his record, and sends him out in the campaign to be her hit man. I thought we had gotten past hating men, and blaming them for everything that has ever gone wrong in the lives of women.
There was a time for anger in the seventies. A lot of us were angry then because we were realizing that the unhappiness many of us felt was because we were stuck in the restrictive roles society set down for us. We woke up to the injustice and did something. We demanded entrance into colleges and occupations that banned us. We demanded better pay, and child care so we could go to work. We got elected to office. We educated our husbands and depending on their reactions, either divorced them or joined with them in moving our marriages to a different and more fulfilling place. And most of us got over our anger and started to like men again. We decided that it was better to work together and to appreciate our differences, not just insist we be treated exactly the same.
Sure, there are still some "sexist pigs," (as we used to call them) out there, but Ted Kennedy isn't one of them, and for Marcia Pappas to attack him when he made a decision that he is entitled to make, and that he sincerely believes is the best decision for women as well as men, not to mention the country, is just stupid.
Her letter wasn't the statement of a disappointed or frustrated woman who is passionately supporting her candidate. It was the cry of a deranged women, whose hatred of men simmers continually below the surface.
Feminism is not and should never be about hating men. Nor should it be about electing a female president regardless of who the female nominee is.
I have considered myself a supporter of woman's rights for many years, far more years than Marcia Pappas I suspect, but I am also a woman who thinks for herself, and doesn't live in a binary world of good and evil, black and white, and male and female. Ted Kennedy supports Barack Obama, as many of us do, precisely because Obama is a candidate who transcends such a binary world.
In my twenties, when I identified strongly with feminists and believed in the causes they fought for, I might have supported a candidate like Hillary Clinton just because she was a woman. As I was awakening to the discrimination against women, I went through my own phase of anger against the male establishment and thought we needed to do bold things and stand together. But times have changed and so have I. Now I believe our best hope is to have a fair contest between male and female candidates, with politicians and citizens, men and women, free to support whatever candidate best represents their views. I no longer believe a woman candidate deserves the support of all women and all liberal male politicians. To the contrary, I think that demeans the woman candidate.
I was glad to see the national organization distance itself from its New York chapter because I think the statement of Marcia Pappas disgraces us all.
She owes Ted Kennedy and all women an apology for her ridiculous outburst, which does nothing to help the cause of women.
Real feminists, male and female, make decisions based on more than gender.
A woman of her word?
Just a few weeks ago I wrote that I was sympathetic to Hillary Clinton, and would vote for her if she was the nominee even though I am supporting Barack Obama, because the possibility of another four years of disastrous Republican policies and never-ending war was simply too painful to contemplate.
I probably still will vote for her if she is the nominee, as the Republican candidates haven't yet turned into compassionate and decent human beings, but the thought of voting for her increasingly turns my stomach.
I've written about the pathology of the Clintons already, and stated why putting them back in the White House would be bad for the country (though not as bad as putting McCain or Romney or Huckabee in – just bad in a different way), but Hillary's refusal to honor her word with respect to the Michigan and Florida primaries should be a lesson to all of us.
Hillary can't be trusted to keep her word.
My understanding is that all of the candidates agreed they would not campaign in Florida or Michigan because those two states moved their primaries up after the Democratic Party had agreed that only Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina would be allowed to hold their caucuses and primaries before Super Tuesday. They also agreed that Michagan's and Florida's delegates would not be seated at the convention and so they would have no say in who the nominee was. Obama and Edwards took their names off the Michigan ballot, in the spirit of honoring their pledge. Hillary kept her name on the ballot, so of course, she won.
In Florida, though, the candidates' names all remained on the ballot. Now, Hillary is trying to curry favor with Floridians by saying that she wants the delegates from both Michigan and Florida to be seated and their votes to count. And tonight she is holding a victory party in Florida in anticipation of her win. Some say she is doing this to leave voters with a memory of a Clinton victory rather than the memory of Obama's South Carolina victory before Super Tuesday.
This may be true, but it may also be true that she realizes the race is so close that the only way she can avoid a floor fight with Obama at the convention is to seat those delegates.
What these tactics tell me is that Hillary is not a woman of her word. She changes her mind and goes back on a promise in order to win. And it isn't the first time. The Clinton campaign, or Clinton surrogates, also tried to change the rules in Nevada. After the Nevada Democratic Party had decided to hold caucuses in the casinos to allow the workers there to participate, a lawsuit was filed to disallow these caucuses. Of course, the lawsuit, brought by the union that supported Hillary, was only filed after the union representing the casino workers endorsed Obama. Fancy that!
These reversals may be smart politics, but they are also a sign of raw ambition, with honesty and integrity taking a back seat. And campaign tactics aren't the only place where we've seen Hillary put her ambition before anything else.
We all know that Hillary's vote to support the Iraq War was a calculated political move. She knew she could not vote "no," even if it was the right thing to do because she believed it would kill her chances to be commander in chief. I guess she figured the vote would be far enough away from her 2008 campaign to allow people time to forget. And it appears many Democrats have because she is currently the front runner in a party whose members opposed the war when she supported it.
The American people deserve better than candidates who lie, scheme, cheat, and steal. George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and most of all Richard Nixon have manifested such glaring character flaws. Hillary's recent actions in the campaign show us that she is capable of the same.
Andrew Sullivan cites one of his readers who calls Hillary "Nixon in a Pantsuit."
I really hate to say it, but I think Andrew's reader was right.
I probably still will vote for her if she is the nominee, as the Republican candidates haven't yet turned into compassionate and decent human beings, but the thought of voting for her increasingly turns my stomach.
I've written about the pathology of the Clintons already, and stated why putting them back in the White House would be bad for the country (though not as bad as putting McCain or Romney or Huckabee in – just bad in a different way), but Hillary's refusal to honor her word with respect to the Michigan and Florida primaries should be a lesson to all of us.
Hillary can't be trusted to keep her word.
My understanding is that all of the candidates agreed they would not campaign in Florida or Michigan because those two states moved their primaries up after the Democratic Party had agreed that only Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina would be allowed to hold their caucuses and primaries before Super Tuesday. They also agreed that Michagan's and Florida's delegates would not be seated at the convention and so they would have no say in who the nominee was. Obama and Edwards took their names off the Michigan ballot, in the spirit of honoring their pledge. Hillary kept her name on the ballot, so of course, she won.
In Florida, though, the candidates' names all remained on the ballot. Now, Hillary is trying to curry favor with Floridians by saying that she wants the delegates from both Michigan and Florida to be seated and their votes to count. And tonight she is holding a victory party in Florida in anticipation of her win. Some say she is doing this to leave voters with a memory of a Clinton victory rather than the memory of Obama's South Carolina victory before Super Tuesday.
This may be true, but it may also be true that she realizes the race is so close that the only way she can avoid a floor fight with Obama at the convention is to seat those delegates.
What these tactics tell me is that Hillary is not a woman of her word. She changes her mind and goes back on a promise in order to win. And it isn't the first time. The Clinton campaign, or Clinton surrogates, also tried to change the rules in Nevada. After the Nevada Democratic Party had decided to hold caucuses in the casinos to allow the workers there to participate, a lawsuit was filed to disallow these caucuses. Of course, the lawsuit, brought by the union that supported Hillary, was only filed after the union representing the casino workers endorsed Obama. Fancy that!
These reversals may be smart politics, but they are also a sign of raw ambition, with honesty and integrity taking a back seat. And campaign tactics aren't the only place where we've seen Hillary put her ambition before anything else.
We all know that Hillary's vote to support the Iraq War was a calculated political move. She knew she could not vote "no," even if it was the right thing to do because she believed it would kill her chances to be commander in chief. I guess she figured the vote would be far enough away from her 2008 campaign to allow people time to forget. And it appears many Democrats have because she is currently the front runner in a party whose members opposed the war when she supported it.
The American people deserve better than candidates who lie, scheme, cheat, and steal. George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and most of all Richard Nixon have manifested such glaring character flaws. Hillary's recent actions in the campaign show us that she is capable of the same.
Andrew Sullivan cites one of his readers who calls Hillary "Nixon in a Pantsuit."
I really hate to say it, but I think Andrew's reader was right.
The State of the Union Speech: George Bush discovers a new word
Last night the president showed us he had learned a new word, or at least his speechwriters had. The word was EMPOWER. He used it 11 times. That's a lot of times for Bush to use a three syllable word in a speech, so I figure it must be significant.
Back in the days when I was a psychotherapist, my colleagues used that word a lot, and, contrarian that I am, I always hated it. To me, it's one of those words that really means nothing.
"What does it mean?" I used to ask my fellow therapists. "How do you empower someone exactly?" Whereupon they would look at me like I was a heretic, or they would give me a lecture on the specific type of therapy they used to achieve said empowerment. I still maintained it was psychobabble.
"Empower" is one of those words that really can mean whatever you want it to mean. I suspect Bush wasn't well acquainted with the word. But in conservative parlance, the word "empower" certainly does have meaning, and it usually means "you're going to have to do it yourself because we in the government certainly aren't going to help."
So I am going to decode the 11 uses of the word "empower" in the State of the Union speech. I will present the exact sentence in which the word "empower" was used, followed by what each sentence actually meant to the conservative Republicans in the House chamber who were listening and applauding madly.
"So in all we do, we must trust in the ability of free people to make wise decisions, and empower them to improve their lives and their futures." (Meaning: you're on your own; we in the government aren't going to help. Besides, we're much better at destroying the lives of people - like in Iraq or New Orleans - than we are at improving them.)
"To build a prosperous future, we must trust people with their own money and empower them to grow our economy." (Meaning: rich people shouldn't have to pay taxes so they can use that money to get even richer and create jobs where they pay minimum wage, provided they can't find enough illegal workers to pay under the table.)
"On housing, we must trust Americans with the responsibility of homeownership and empower them to weather turbulent times in the housing market." (Meaning: we said we favored an "ownership society" but that didn't mean we were going to regulate lenders and mortgage brokers, so if you were dumb enough to take on one of those stupid sub-prime loans with the low teaser rates, and now you can't afford payments with the new interest rate, well that's just one of the risks of home ownership.)
"To build a future of quality health care, we must trust patients and doctors to make medical decisions and empower them with better information and better options." (Meaning: we encourage the pharmaceutical companies to advertise on television so you'll be sure and know about the newest drugs, but we won't regulate the insurance industry or the pharmaceutical industry, and we certainly won't do anything to keep the cost of insurance down. If you're not willing to work an extra job to afford health insurance, well that's your problem.)
"On education, we must trust students to learn if given the chance and empower parents to demand results from our schools." (Meaning: ?....Trust students to learn if given the chance? …I have no clue what this means; it's gibberish. )
"On trade, we must trust American workers to compete with anyone in the world and empower them by opening up new markets overseas." (Meaning: the American workers who still work in the ever shrinking manufacturing sector in the United States are working harder than ever, but those jobs will be gone soon. Except of course for the jobs in the arms industry, which we intend to keep growing. But never fear, once we pass those free trade agreements and we export your job, you will be able to buy more cheap stuff at Wal Mart.)
"To build a future of energy security, we must trust in the creative genius of American researchers and entrepreneurs and empower them to pioneer a new generation of clean energy technology." (Meaning: This sounds good but I don't really mean it. Dick and I would lose a lot of money if we stopped our dependence on oil, and our buddies in the industry would be really pissed, so what I really mean is let's drill in Alaska and all over the country to find more oil, and invade a couple more Middle Eastern countries so we can get our hands on our oil that unfairly ended up under their soil.)
"To keep America competitive into the future, we must trust in the skill of our scientists and engineers and empower them to pursue the breakthroughs of tomorrow." (Meaning: I don't really believe in science, but I'm saying this because it sounds good to those who do. Anyway the world is ending soon, so it doesn't really matter what I say about science.)
"On matters of science and life, we must trust in the innovative spirit of medical researchers and empower them to discover new treatments while respecting moral boundaries." (Meaning: If you send me another bill to fund embryonic stem cell research I will veto it again.)
"On matters of justice, we must trust in the wisdom of our Founders and empower judges who understand that the Constitution means what it says." (Meaning: the Constitution is just a piece of paper – you don't expect me to have read the whole thing, do you? Just because I haven't read the Constitution doesn't mean my judges haven't, and I trust them to interpret it whatever way Dick wants them to. And he says they have to favor corporations and executive power. )
"In communities across our land, we must trust in the good heart of the American people and empower them to serve their neighbors in need." (Meaning: entitlement programs must be ended.)
Monday, January 28, 2008
Superman
I don't know if anyone should pay any attention to polls anymore as they have been wrong in every primary and caucus to date.
But the polls are telling us that Hillary is still ahead in most super Tuesday states. Since the vote is a week from tomorrow, that doesn't give Mr. Obama much time to catch up and pass her. But as I said, the polls have been terribly wrong. With two candidates who are unlike any candidates the country has ever seen, the polls simply don't know how to measure the mood of the voters.
Hillary is the first serious woman candidate, and perhaps more importantly, the first First Lady to run. Voters have mixed feelings. Many who would love to finally see a woman president aren't sure they want the first one to be Hillary. Voters are feeling love and revulsion at the same time: love for who the Clintons once were, and revulsion at what they have become. Many who supported Hillary a week ago have switched their allegience to Obama.
Barack Obama is not only the first African American to have a real shot at the nomination, he is an African American who transcends race. Again, voters aren't sure what to think. Just when they agree with Hillary that he is too inexperienced, they hear him speak and hear not only evidence of experience, but evidence of maturity and wisdom. Barack Obama is not just a candidate, he is a phenomenon, a politician with the potential to be a statesman, a visionary and prophet all rolled into one, and many voters are deciding this is their chance to be on the right side of history, to participate in something that could return the country to greatness. They are increasingly seeing Hillary as the past, Barack as the future.
Ted Kennedy and his niece Caroline Kennedy are right to see the potential greatness in him. He reminds them of the two fallen Kennedys who inspired another generation.
If the polls are right this time, and Obama loses to Hillary, then we all lose with him. We will have missed an opportunity to move in a new direction, towards a place we very much need to go. If Hillary wins the nomination, she may or may not beat the Republican nominee in November. Her negatives are so high, and her momentum so poor, that she is likely to ensure four more years of Republican insanity. If she is victorious and does become the next president, however, things could be just as bad.
On the other hand, a surprise Obama victory on Super Tuesday will not only energize Democrats, but also capture the entire country. Already he is causing Republicans to pay serious attention. An Obama come-from-behind win on Tuesday will show us just how powerful a figure he is. If he defeats the Clintons, when they have had an enormous lead, he will be a superhero, a giant killer who did the impossible, and whose momentum will carry him to the White House in November.
And that's just the beginning.
Children should be seen and not heard... and appropriately medicated?
Another good article about the collaboration between Big Pharma and the Psychiatric profession in the effort to control our children.
THE CLINTON PATHOLOGY
The television pundits keep trying to convince us that overall Bill's presence on the campaign trail is helping Hillary. "He's still a beloved figure in the Democratic Party," some say. Others call him the "big dog" or the "head of the party." Even when they are commenting on his questionable behavior or his head-scratching comments, they seem to think he does more good than harm because of his charisma and charm and political skills.
I'm not so sure.
Hillary seemed to be doing fine as long as Bill was running around being a reformed politician, a do-gooder who traveled the globe handing out money. But the minute someone in Hillary's campaign decided they needed his help (about five minutes after it became apparent Hillary would lose Iowa, I suspect) the campaign was in big trouble. Why? Because Bill Clinton has an enormous amount of emotional baggage that can't stay hidden forever, especially once he feels threatened.
Continue reading on Outraged Citizen
Saturday, January 26, 2008
The American Candidate
The Clintons say they are not playing the race card. Then how do you explain this?
Bill Clinton (once dubbed the nation's "first black president") dismissed the importance of Obama's South Carolina win by saying Jesse Jackson won in South Carolina twice. He didn't say John Edwards, the white male candidate, won four years ago in South Carolina. He pointed to victories by a black candidate. How is that NOT playing the race card?
And according to the AP, via Josh Marshall:
So the Clinton strategy was successful, according to their strategists, because it has now branded Obama the black candidate.
They had better think again. And first they should take a look at the crowd listening to Obama's stirring, eloquent victory speech. The crowd was, as CNN noted, one of the most diverse they had ever seen in a presidential campaign.
No Bill and Hillary. Senator Obama is not the black candidate, as much as you may want to label him as such. He is the candidate who transcends race, and the people see it and hear it and feel it. Even radically conservative Bill Bennett saw it in commenting on Obama's speech on CNN.
Barack Obama is the American candidate.
Bill Clinton (once dubbed the nation's "first black president") dismissed the importance of Obama's South Carolina win by saying Jesse Jackson won in South Carolina twice. He didn't say John Edwards, the white male candidate, won four years ago in South Carolina. He pointed to victories by a black candidate. How is that NOT playing the race card?
And according to the AP, via Josh Marshall:
Clinton campaign strategists denied any intentional effort to stir the racial debate. But they said they believe the fallout has had the effect of branding Obama as "the black candidate," a tag that could hurt him outside the South.
So the Clinton strategy was successful, according to their strategists, because it has now branded Obama the black candidate.
They had better think again. And first they should take a look at the crowd listening to Obama's stirring, eloquent victory speech. The crowd was, as CNN noted, one of the most diverse they had ever seen in a presidential campaign.
No Bill and Hillary. Senator Obama is not the black candidate, as much as you may want to label him as such. He is the candidate who transcends race, and the people see it and hear it and feel it. Even radically conservative Bill Bennett saw it in commenting on Obama's speech on CNN.
Barack Obama is the American candidate.
A pause to celebrate what really matters
Tonight my husband and I will watch the returns come in from South Carolina and see whether Barack Obama survived the full on assault from the Clinton machine.
But first things first as we take time to celebrate what really matters.
Today is my grandson Sean's seventh birthday and we are taking him out to breakfast.
Happy Birthday Sean!
Friday, January 25, 2008
Karl Rove is laughing
Democratic voters in recent days have been dismayed to see Hillary Clinton, and her defender husband, the former president, in petty and dishonest battles with their political rival, Barack Obama. Being so critical of the Rovian tactics of the past two elections, we wanted our nominating process to be civilized and uplifting.
At first, we were thrilled to see our diverse field of candidates, especially when you compared it to the typical Republican field of all white males. We thought the problem we would have, when it came our turn to choose, was that there were too many good choices. Almost all of the candidates, with the exception of Dennis Kucinich who was always really the conscience of the group rather than a serious contender, were saying the same things and so our task was difficult. How could we decide which of these great candidates we wanted as our standard bearer when all of them were so good?
We would have to consider things other than their policy positions, which were all pretty much the same. Did we want to go with a former first lady and elect the first woman? Or might electing an inspiring and charismatic African American be the way to go? Did we want to be the generation to elect the first black president? How about a Latino who had much foreign policy experience and knew how to conduct tough negotiations around the world, or a former vice presidential nominee who would finally do something to help the forgotten people in the country?
We thought our dilemma was the best of all dilemmas.
We were wrong.
Because once the field narrowed, and the battle was between two firsts – the first woman and the first African American – it got emotional and ugly. And part of the reason it got ugly was that there was so much at stake, part was because the Clintons felt the nomination by all rights belonged to Hillary and should be easy to secure, and part it was because the specters of racism and misogyny were right below the surface, causing the candidates and their staffs, as well as the media and voters, to overreact and cater to their worst instincts.
Some may think these "overreactions" were deliberate, designed to turn voters against the other candidate, and perhaps they were. Campaigns have become highly calculated and staged psychological events, with advisors who know how to manipulate the emotions of the electorate so that we never really know what we need to know about whom we are electing. It could be said that Bush's entire 2000 campaign was an exercise in deception, with Bush pledging to be a humble, compassionate conservative who would be a "uniter." These, of course, were all words tested in focus groups and had no relation to the actual candidate Bush. It was the campaign tactics, not the candidate, that came out victorious in the 2000 election, and look what we got: eight years of hell.
The unfortuante reality is that the people are easily fooled by candidates who mislead them and appeal to some of their worst instincts. In this sense, a campaign is like a nationwide Rorschach test. The voters see what they want to see, only in this case it is also what the campaign carefully leads them to see. In recent days, the Clinton campaign has capitalized on two issues they knew would resonate with African American voters. Hillary inserted the words "slum lord" into the debate, and made sure she connected them to Obama, whose defense would take much more time than a debate or 30 second commercial could provide. She also took advantage of Obama's unfortunate reference to Ronald Reagan, who is hated in the African American community, and said that Obama praised his ideas (which he didn’t). Again, how does one explain that in 30 seconds? And once the lie is out there, it's impossible to take it back. As Winston Churchill once said "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." Churchill did not know it, of course, but he was actually summing up current American campaign strategy.
For seven long years, we Democrats have been waiting for an opportunity to finally take back the White House. With George W. Bush's unpopularity, this seemed the year. Having the 2000 election stolen was devastating, because it led to a terrible and unnecessary war and tax cuts that have bankrupted the treasury. Losing in 2004 was damaging in other ways. Not only did the war continue, but the Supreme Court got two new ultraconservative members who are busy undoing many progressive reforms and laws. Losing in 2008 would be unthinkable. The Supreme Court could be lost for decades, war would continue indefinitely, poverty will deepen and more Americans will lose health insurance, and the corporate takeover of this country, with the further destruction of the middle class, might very well be completed.
Yet the candidates bicker and play games with the voters because, while they may have good ideas and may all make acceptable presidents, what they want most is to win. I am disgusted with them, of course, and with their tactics. I am mostly disgusted with the Clintons, because I think they are the ones who are the most manipulative and the most dishonest. I also don't think a former president should be out there attacking reporters as well as his wife's opponent, getting red in the face, and defending his wife, especially when he treated her so abysmally in a very public way eight years ago, and even more so because she should be showing us she is strong enough to do this on her own.
But I also blame the voters. Candidates continue attacking each other in dishonest and personal ways because they know it works with voters who are far less attentive to all the facts, and far more gullible than they should be, or perhaps, like the Rorschach test, they see what they want to see. For example, in a story on CNN yesterday, a voter in South Carolina said everyone she talks to brings up the "fact" that "Obama is a Muslim." Now anyone who has paid a modicum of attention to his campaign or the news knows that this is untrue, that Obama is in fact a Christian whose membership in a Chicago church is controversial because its minister has praised Louis Farrakhan. This story has been out for quite some time, yet there are still a large number of people who believe an internet smear that says Obama is a Muslim. Why do they believe it?
One answer, of course, is that they retain racist attitudes, but cannot express that in public, as it is not considered acceptable. So they latch onto something negative they hear about the black candidate and use that to reject him. It is still okay in this country to reject Muslims, so they believe that falsehood about Obama. And his having a Muslim sounding last name that rhymes with "Osama," and a middle name that is the same as that of the deceased Iraqi dictator, makes the smear easy to apply.
How sad that we live in a country where people can be fooled by candidates and opponents of candidates because they hear what they want to hear. How tragic that Obama's main opponent, a distinguished and capable woman, a woman who has always fought for civil rights for minorities, and whose white husband was once dubbed "the first black president," would attack the man who could REALLY become the first black president because she so desperately wants to be the first woman president. How sad that what once made me and so many Democrats proud to be a member of the Democratic Party now has us feeling helpless to stop the internal bickering of two highly qualified candidates who could each make history this November, but instead may send voters running to the party that has spent the last eight years running the country off a cliff.
Karl Rove couldn't have planned it any better.
At first, we were thrilled to see our diverse field of candidates, especially when you compared it to the typical Republican field of all white males. We thought the problem we would have, when it came our turn to choose, was that there were too many good choices. Almost all of the candidates, with the exception of Dennis Kucinich who was always really the conscience of the group rather than a serious contender, were saying the same things and so our task was difficult. How could we decide which of these great candidates we wanted as our standard bearer when all of them were so good?
We would have to consider things other than their policy positions, which were all pretty much the same. Did we want to go with a former first lady and elect the first woman? Or might electing an inspiring and charismatic African American be the way to go? Did we want to be the generation to elect the first black president? How about a Latino who had much foreign policy experience and knew how to conduct tough negotiations around the world, or a former vice presidential nominee who would finally do something to help the forgotten people in the country?
We thought our dilemma was the best of all dilemmas.
We were wrong.
Because once the field narrowed, and the battle was between two firsts – the first woman and the first African American – it got emotional and ugly. And part of the reason it got ugly was that there was so much at stake, part was because the Clintons felt the nomination by all rights belonged to Hillary and should be easy to secure, and part it was because the specters of racism and misogyny were right below the surface, causing the candidates and their staffs, as well as the media and voters, to overreact and cater to their worst instincts.
Some may think these "overreactions" were deliberate, designed to turn voters against the other candidate, and perhaps they were. Campaigns have become highly calculated and staged psychological events, with advisors who know how to manipulate the emotions of the electorate so that we never really know what we need to know about whom we are electing. It could be said that Bush's entire 2000 campaign was an exercise in deception, with Bush pledging to be a humble, compassionate conservative who would be a "uniter." These, of course, were all words tested in focus groups and had no relation to the actual candidate Bush. It was the campaign tactics, not the candidate, that came out victorious in the 2000 election, and look what we got: eight years of hell.
The unfortuante reality is that the people are easily fooled by candidates who mislead them and appeal to some of their worst instincts. In this sense, a campaign is like a nationwide Rorschach test. The voters see what they want to see, only in this case it is also what the campaign carefully leads them to see. In recent days, the Clinton campaign has capitalized on two issues they knew would resonate with African American voters. Hillary inserted the words "slum lord" into the debate, and made sure she connected them to Obama, whose defense would take much more time than a debate or 30 second commercial could provide. She also took advantage of Obama's unfortunate reference to Ronald Reagan, who is hated in the African American community, and said that Obama praised his ideas (which he didn’t). Again, how does one explain that in 30 seconds? And once the lie is out there, it's impossible to take it back. As Winston Churchill once said "A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on." Churchill did not know it, of course, but he was actually summing up current American campaign strategy.
For seven long years, we Democrats have been waiting for an opportunity to finally take back the White House. With George W. Bush's unpopularity, this seemed the year. Having the 2000 election stolen was devastating, because it led to a terrible and unnecessary war and tax cuts that have bankrupted the treasury. Losing in 2004 was damaging in other ways. Not only did the war continue, but the Supreme Court got two new ultraconservative members who are busy undoing many progressive reforms and laws. Losing in 2008 would be unthinkable. The Supreme Court could be lost for decades, war would continue indefinitely, poverty will deepen and more Americans will lose health insurance, and the corporate takeover of this country, with the further destruction of the middle class, might very well be completed.
Yet the candidates bicker and play games with the voters because, while they may have good ideas and may all make acceptable presidents, what they want most is to win. I am disgusted with them, of course, and with their tactics. I am mostly disgusted with the Clintons, because I think they are the ones who are the most manipulative and the most dishonest. I also don't think a former president should be out there attacking reporters as well as his wife's opponent, getting red in the face, and defending his wife, especially when he treated her so abysmally in a very public way eight years ago, and even more so because she should be showing us she is strong enough to do this on her own.
But I also blame the voters. Candidates continue attacking each other in dishonest and personal ways because they know it works with voters who are far less attentive to all the facts, and far more gullible than they should be, or perhaps, like the Rorschach test, they see what they want to see. For example, in a story on CNN yesterday, a voter in South Carolina said everyone she talks to brings up the "fact" that "Obama is a Muslim." Now anyone who has paid a modicum of attention to his campaign or the news knows that this is untrue, that Obama is in fact a Christian whose membership in a Chicago church is controversial because its minister has praised Louis Farrakhan. This story has been out for quite some time, yet there are still a large number of people who believe an internet smear that says Obama is a Muslim. Why do they believe it?
One answer, of course, is that they retain racist attitudes, but cannot express that in public, as it is not considered acceptable. So they latch onto something negative they hear about the black candidate and use that to reject him. It is still okay in this country to reject Muslims, so they believe that falsehood about Obama. And his having a Muslim sounding last name that rhymes with "Osama," and a middle name that is the same as that of the deceased Iraqi dictator, makes the smear easy to apply.
How sad that we live in a country where people can be fooled by candidates and opponents of candidates because they hear what they want to hear. How tragic that Obama's main opponent, a distinguished and capable woman, a woman who has always fought for civil rights for minorities, and whose white husband was once dubbed "the first black president," would attack the man who could REALLY become the first black president because she so desperately wants to be the first woman president. How sad that what once made me and so many Democrats proud to be a member of the Democratic Party now has us feeling helpless to stop the internal bickering of two highly qualified candidates who could each make history this November, but instead may send voters running to the party that has spent the last eight years running the country off a cliff.
Karl Rove couldn't have planned it any better.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Essential reading
Two must read articles on Alternet:
Chalmers Johnson writes about how America's economic dependence on military spending will only lead to economic disaster.
John P. Geyman writes of how the three leading Democratic candidates present less than desirable health care plans, and makes the nearly irrefutable case for single payer universal health care.
For more on the importance of implementing single payer universal health care see my five part series at Outraged Citizen, beginning here.
Chalmers Johnson writes about how America's economic dependence on military spending will only lead to economic disaster.
John P. Geyman writes of how the three leading Democratic candidates present less than desirable health care plans, and makes the nearly irrefutable case for single payer universal health care.
For more on the importance of implementing single payer universal health care see my five part series at Outraged Citizen, beginning here.
The emotions of the Democratic electorate: the appeal of Hillary
Over on the Republican side, it's increasingly looking like John McCain will be the nominee. With Thompson out, Giuliani tanking and Huckabee laying off staff because of lack of funds, the only one to stop McCain appears to be the self-financed Romney, and we will have to wait and see if he can do the job.
Some are speculating that if McCain is the nominee, he will choose Huckabee as a running mate. I would be quite surprised by that in that Huckabee has views that turn off a great deal of the electorate, in spite of his appeal to the evangelical Christian base of the party. I think a better running mate would be Thompson, who appeals to evangelicals as well as to mainstream conservatives. We could call it the "geezer ticket."
Right now, in spite of an anticipated Obama win in South Carolina, Hillary Clinton looks positioned to win the Democratic nomination. She is ahead in California and New York, the two biggest Super Tuesday prizes, so unless Obama can win most of the other states, she is going to be way ahead in the delegate count. It may not put her over the top, but it could get her close.
I've been wondering for a few weeks now, ever since she won the New Hampshire primary, why Hillary appeals to so many more Democratic voters than does Obama. The media has portrayed it as a matter of her greater experience, or the popularity of her husband, or her appeal to women and Hispanics, vs. Obama's appeal to African Americans. But those explanations don't entirely satisfy me. I suspect there is a more emotional factor here that is hard to quantify.
Obama's entire campaign is about bringing the country together. Since polls have shown for years that the voters think America is too divided, and that they are furious with Washington politicians for being unable or unwilling to work together, you would think Obama's appeal would be greater than Hillary's appeal, which is all about standing up to the other party and pushing her reforms through Congress.
One explanation for why this appeal to unity isn't as effective as one might think is that Democratic voters, as opposed to Independents, are much more invested in party loyalty and party politics. And with what they've had to endure over the past seven years, they simply aren't ready to play nice with Republicans.
And who can blame them? Republicans don't play fair – ever. They don't just run negative campaigns; they run hostile, disgusting, and dishonest campaigns. So the more Hillary stands up for herself against Obama, even if she is stretching the truth, which she and her husband both do, the more the base likes her.
Republicans also don't play fair in governing. The six years of Republican control of Congress, personified by people like Tom DeLay, was an exercise in completely shutting out Democratic voices, changing the rules in order to ram things through, and putting Democrats in terrible damned if you do, damned if you don't voting positions. Even now, with a Democratic majority in Congress, Republicans know how to stymie the leaders and prevent them from passing their favored legislation. They don't want to govern in collaboration with Democrats; they want to destroy Democrats. So a majority of Democratic voters don't really want a president who can work with Republicans, they want a president who will kick their butts. And they think Hillary, with Bill close at hand, will do that.
Unity is a nice thing. Just as finding a way to repair a conflict ridden marriage is a good thing. But unless both spouses are willing to put down the hatchets and think of the good of the children, as well as the needs of each other, it won't work. Democrats feel more like battered spouses than partners of a spouse who has good intentions but just has forgotten how to get along. They're tired of being suckers, tired of hearing Republicans say they want to work together and then refuse to do so. Democrats are tired of playing Charlie Brown to the Republican Lucy holding the football.
After seven long years of a Republican president who has broken every rule of civility and unified governance, and made the country worse off in every single category than it was during all the years of the Clinton administration, the Democrats have had it. They aren't ready for a reconciliation. Maybe they will be in four years, or maybe in eight, or maybe never. A lot depends on how the Republicans act.
But it is increasingly looking like Barack Obama's message is premature. And like so many of my fellow Democrats who like Obama, who suspect he will appeal to more voters than Hillary in the general election, and who think he just might have the right skills to pull the country together, I understand that many of my fellow Democrats just aren't there yet. On the one hand, they want less hostility in the country, but on the other, they despise what the Republicans have done to this country, and fear what they will try to do in the general election. Unlike Charlie Brown, they have stopped believing Lucy, stopped seeing her as a trustworthy partner. And in order to have unity, you must begin to take a chance and trust the other side. The simple reality is that after the stolen 2000 election, the stubbornness of the president, the dishonesty and secrecy of the White House, and the arrogant one-party rule in Congress, Democrats no longer trust Republicans.
I am still voting for Obama, because I don't want to give in to my desire for pay back and revenge, and because I think you can be a unifier and still handle the opposition party. Franklin Roosevelt did it and forged a consensus that lasted for decades. I'm not one of those Democrats, however, who says she won't vote for Clinton in the general election, and would rather stay home or support a third party candidate. There is too much at stake to give another Republican a chance to further destroy the economy and the middle class, as Republicans always do.
I may think Hillary Clinton is shrill and unfair, and I may not like the idea of a Clinton dynasty, but if she's the one who can put the Republicans out of business for four or eight years, and if she wins the nomination, then I'm willing to get behind her and hope that in eight years, the country will be ready for a unifier like Obama.
Some are speculating that if McCain is the nominee, he will choose Huckabee as a running mate. I would be quite surprised by that in that Huckabee has views that turn off a great deal of the electorate, in spite of his appeal to the evangelical Christian base of the party. I think a better running mate would be Thompson, who appeals to evangelicals as well as to mainstream conservatives. We could call it the "geezer ticket."
Right now, in spite of an anticipated Obama win in South Carolina, Hillary Clinton looks positioned to win the Democratic nomination. She is ahead in California and New York, the two biggest Super Tuesday prizes, so unless Obama can win most of the other states, she is going to be way ahead in the delegate count. It may not put her over the top, but it could get her close.
I've been wondering for a few weeks now, ever since she won the New Hampshire primary, why Hillary appeals to so many more Democratic voters than does Obama. The media has portrayed it as a matter of her greater experience, or the popularity of her husband, or her appeal to women and Hispanics, vs. Obama's appeal to African Americans. But those explanations don't entirely satisfy me. I suspect there is a more emotional factor here that is hard to quantify.
Obama's entire campaign is about bringing the country together. Since polls have shown for years that the voters think America is too divided, and that they are furious with Washington politicians for being unable or unwilling to work together, you would think Obama's appeal would be greater than Hillary's appeal, which is all about standing up to the other party and pushing her reforms through Congress.
One explanation for why this appeal to unity isn't as effective as one might think is that Democratic voters, as opposed to Independents, are much more invested in party loyalty and party politics. And with what they've had to endure over the past seven years, they simply aren't ready to play nice with Republicans.
And who can blame them? Republicans don't play fair – ever. They don't just run negative campaigns; they run hostile, disgusting, and dishonest campaigns. So the more Hillary stands up for herself against Obama, even if she is stretching the truth, which she and her husband both do, the more the base likes her.
Republicans also don't play fair in governing. The six years of Republican control of Congress, personified by people like Tom DeLay, was an exercise in completely shutting out Democratic voices, changing the rules in order to ram things through, and putting Democrats in terrible damned if you do, damned if you don't voting positions. Even now, with a Democratic majority in Congress, Republicans know how to stymie the leaders and prevent them from passing their favored legislation. They don't want to govern in collaboration with Democrats; they want to destroy Democrats. So a majority of Democratic voters don't really want a president who can work with Republicans, they want a president who will kick their butts. And they think Hillary, with Bill close at hand, will do that.
Unity is a nice thing. Just as finding a way to repair a conflict ridden marriage is a good thing. But unless both spouses are willing to put down the hatchets and think of the good of the children, as well as the needs of each other, it won't work. Democrats feel more like battered spouses than partners of a spouse who has good intentions but just has forgotten how to get along. They're tired of being suckers, tired of hearing Republicans say they want to work together and then refuse to do so. Democrats are tired of playing Charlie Brown to the Republican Lucy holding the football.
After seven long years of a Republican president who has broken every rule of civility and unified governance, and made the country worse off in every single category than it was during all the years of the Clinton administration, the Democrats have had it. They aren't ready for a reconciliation. Maybe they will be in four years, or maybe in eight, or maybe never. A lot depends on how the Republicans act.
But it is increasingly looking like Barack Obama's message is premature. And like so many of my fellow Democrats who like Obama, who suspect he will appeal to more voters than Hillary in the general election, and who think he just might have the right skills to pull the country together, I understand that many of my fellow Democrats just aren't there yet. On the one hand, they want less hostility in the country, but on the other, they despise what the Republicans have done to this country, and fear what they will try to do in the general election. Unlike Charlie Brown, they have stopped believing Lucy, stopped seeing her as a trustworthy partner. And in order to have unity, you must begin to take a chance and trust the other side. The simple reality is that after the stolen 2000 election, the stubbornness of the president, the dishonesty and secrecy of the White House, and the arrogant one-party rule in Congress, Democrats no longer trust Republicans.
I am still voting for Obama, because I don't want to give in to my desire for pay back and revenge, and because I think you can be a unifier and still handle the opposition party. Franklin Roosevelt did it and forged a consensus that lasted for decades. I'm not one of those Democrats, however, who says she won't vote for Clinton in the general election, and would rather stay home or support a third party candidate. There is too much at stake to give another Republican a chance to further destroy the economy and the middle class, as Republicans always do.
I may think Hillary Clinton is shrill and unfair, and I may not like the idea of a Clinton dynasty, but if she's the one who can put the Republicans out of business for four or eight years, and if she wins the nomination, then I'm willing to get behind her and hope that in eight years, the country will be ready for a unifier like Obama.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Barack's two front war
I've been checking out the liberal blogs this morning and am not finding much consensus on the effect of last night's Democratic debate. It's almost as if everyone is so shocked by what they saw on television that they are paralyzed and can't decide what the out-in-the-open hostility between Clinton and Obama means. I'm not sure I do either, but here are some thoughts.
My initial reaction was to cringe as they began going after each other. It brought back memories of the twenty-five years of marriage counseling I did, and the frustration I would feel each time husband and wife did a tit for tat with each other. No one ever wins in such encounters and I don't think anyone won last night either.
I found myself wanting to put words in Barack Obama's mouth. I wanted him to say after about the third attack from Hillary: "You know, we may have differences with each other, and we may be engaged in a highly competitive contest for the most important job in the world, but the reality is we are much more similar in our policies than we are different. We can all be proud of the fact that regardless of what we believed in 2003, today we all condemn the war in Iraq. None of the Republican front runners can say that. We can all be proud of the fact that we are discussing health care reform, and ending poverty, and continuing the fight for equality, when Republicans don't even discuss these issues with any seriousness. Yes, sometimes in the heat of the contest we lash out at each other, and I wish that didn't have to be. But the truth is that any one of us would be a far better president than any of our opponents. And I don't want our differences on this stage to mask that fact."
He didn't say that, although Hillary said something sort of close to that a little later in the debate, not because she was being generous but because I think she realized she was beginning to sound like a shrew. That's the danger for Hillary. In trying to look strong and unflappable, she runs the risk of appearing shrewish. The danger for Barack is that he might alienate democrats who are still loyal devotees of Bill and Hillary.
I think the most significant thing Barack said last night in terms of the dynamics of the contest is that sometimes he doesn't know whether he is running against Bill or Hillary. I think that's true. I don't think the country really knows who they are voting for. Would Hillary really be the president, or would Bill have a third term? If she becomes president, at least in name, would he be at cabinet meetings? If she is attacked in the press, will we see Bill always jumping in to rescue her?
I would love to see a woman president because I think a woman could run this country. I'm not so sure, though, that Hillary is the one I want to see.
And here's the problem America faces now. When Bill Clinton was elected president, the people were voting for intelligence and competence. There was real concern that George H.W. Bush was incompetent, at least when it came to managing the economy. Bill Clinton was a policy wonk, and charismatic to boot. He both instilled confidence and inspired. The electorate was aware of his playboy reputation, but ignored it and opted for a competent leader who made them feel good. Then, Bill Clinton let the country down. His playboy side emerged and he demoralized enough people that they voted in the next election for an incompetent, alcoholic, failed businessman who seemed harmless. (Yes, I know Al Gore really won the popular vote, but the election shouldn't have been close. Had Clinton not screwed up, he could have helped Gore campaign and it would have been no contest. At least the election would never have ended up in the Supreme Court where it was stolen.)
So now the electorate knows it can't go with incompetence. The country is in such terrible shape on so many fronts today because they chose the worst president in history, that it wants to go with competence. However, in this election, the Democrats are trying to decide between what they see as competence but no inspiration, and inspiration but uncertain competence. Hillary is surely competent, but lacks any kind of charisma and ability to inspire. Barack is all about inspiration, but lacking her years of experience, leaves some wondering if he has the same level of competence.
So as people begin to believe Barack is competent, Hillary has to do two things. She has to rely on Bill's charisma and popularity to counterbalance her stiff schoolmarm personality, and she has to attack Barack's competence. Barack, on the other hand, has to fight a war on these two fronts. He has to compete directly with Bill on the charisma issue, and he has to defend himself against the Clinton attack on his competence.
I think he did a fairly good job last night, though it was uncomforable to watch. I don't think anyone knows how this will all shake out, but I will add one personal note. Watching the debate last night did not endear me to Hillary. Since I am a long time admirer of the Clintons, I can only imagine how it looked to those who dislike the Clintons.
But people see what they want to see. And the Clintons will probably pull off a victory for the nomination. I don't think that's good for the democrats or the country, because I fear it will propel McCain right into the White House, and as I said here, that would be a disaster.
Now I'm going to go watch CNN and see how much I'm losing in my 401K.
My initial reaction was to cringe as they began going after each other. It brought back memories of the twenty-five years of marriage counseling I did, and the frustration I would feel each time husband and wife did a tit for tat with each other. No one ever wins in such encounters and I don't think anyone won last night either.
I found myself wanting to put words in Barack Obama's mouth. I wanted him to say after about the third attack from Hillary: "You know, we may have differences with each other, and we may be engaged in a highly competitive contest for the most important job in the world, but the reality is we are much more similar in our policies than we are different. We can all be proud of the fact that regardless of what we believed in 2003, today we all condemn the war in Iraq. None of the Republican front runners can say that. We can all be proud of the fact that we are discussing health care reform, and ending poverty, and continuing the fight for equality, when Republicans don't even discuss these issues with any seriousness. Yes, sometimes in the heat of the contest we lash out at each other, and I wish that didn't have to be. But the truth is that any one of us would be a far better president than any of our opponents. And I don't want our differences on this stage to mask that fact."
He didn't say that, although Hillary said something sort of close to that a little later in the debate, not because she was being generous but because I think she realized she was beginning to sound like a shrew. That's the danger for Hillary. In trying to look strong and unflappable, she runs the risk of appearing shrewish. The danger for Barack is that he might alienate democrats who are still loyal devotees of Bill and Hillary.
I think the most significant thing Barack said last night in terms of the dynamics of the contest is that sometimes he doesn't know whether he is running against Bill or Hillary. I think that's true. I don't think the country really knows who they are voting for. Would Hillary really be the president, or would Bill have a third term? If she becomes president, at least in name, would he be at cabinet meetings? If she is attacked in the press, will we see Bill always jumping in to rescue her?
I would love to see a woman president because I think a woman could run this country. I'm not so sure, though, that Hillary is the one I want to see.
And here's the problem America faces now. When Bill Clinton was elected president, the people were voting for intelligence and competence. There was real concern that George H.W. Bush was incompetent, at least when it came to managing the economy. Bill Clinton was a policy wonk, and charismatic to boot. He both instilled confidence and inspired. The electorate was aware of his playboy reputation, but ignored it and opted for a competent leader who made them feel good. Then, Bill Clinton let the country down. His playboy side emerged and he demoralized enough people that they voted in the next election for an incompetent, alcoholic, failed businessman who seemed harmless. (Yes, I know Al Gore really won the popular vote, but the election shouldn't have been close. Had Clinton not screwed up, he could have helped Gore campaign and it would have been no contest. At least the election would never have ended up in the Supreme Court where it was stolen.)
So now the electorate knows it can't go with incompetence. The country is in such terrible shape on so many fronts today because they chose the worst president in history, that it wants to go with competence. However, in this election, the Democrats are trying to decide between what they see as competence but no inspiration, and inspiration but uncertain competence. Hillary is surely competent, but lacks any kind of charisma and ability to inspire. Barack is all about inspiration, but lacking her years of experience, leaves some wondering if he has the same level of competence.
So as people begin to believe Barack is competent, Hillary has to do two things. She has to rely on Bill's charisma and popularity to counterbalance her stiff schoolmarm personality, and she has to attack Barack's competence. Barack, on the other hand, has to fight a war on these two fronts. He has to compete directly with Bill on the charisma issue, and he has to defend himself against the Clinton attack on his competence.
I think he did a fairly good job last night, though it was uncomforable to watch. I don't think anyone knows how this will all shake out, but I will add one personal note. Watching the debate last night did not endear me to Hillary. Since I am a long time admirer of the Clintons, I can only imagine how it looked to those who dislike the Clintons.
But people see what they want to see. And the Clintons will probably pull off a victory for the nomination. I don't think that's good for the democrats or the country, because I fear it will propel McCain right into the White House, and as I said here, that would be a disaster.
Now I'm going to go watch CNN and see how much I'm losing in my 401K.
Monday, January 21, 2008
A John McCain presidency
I found myself saying something unthinkable to my 81 year old Republican father yesterday. I told him I didn't think it would be a catastrophe if John McCain were elected. To be honest, I said this in the spirit of family harmony. My father and I have a long history of arguing about politics, and since he is now disabled, I don't want to get him all riled up.
But even as I was saying it, I realized I didn't really mean it. A John McCain presidency would be a disaster. Sure, it wouldn't be as bad as a Rudy Giuliani presidency, which might get us embroiled in World War III while destroying the domestic economy, or a Mitt Romney presidency, which would complete the corporate takeover of this country, or a (heaven forbid!) Mike Huckabee presidency which would take "faith-based" to a new and frightening level.
John McCain might stop torture as official U.S. policy and address the issue of climate change in some fashion. Nonetheless, in so many other areas, a McCain presidency would do terrible things to us as a country including:
*Keeping our troops and treasure bound up in Iraq indefinitely.
*Continuing the health care crisis by instituting only "market-based" and "tax- based" reforms, which would do nothing to help those who can least afford health care.
*Continuing the current tax cuts, which put a much higher tax burden on the middle and working classes, continue to grow the deficit, widen the divide between rich and poor, and mortgage our children's future.
*Appointing radical right wing judges to the Supreme Court who would abandon the longstanding respect for issues of privacy, favor corporate rights over individual rights, and continue the effort to give the president increasingly more power than the Congress.
A John McCain presidency, simply by continuing Republican ownership of the White House, would be good news for corporations and bad news for individuals, good for the wealthy and bad for the poor, good for oil companies and bad for the planet, good for CEO's and bad for hourly wage workers, and as much as he may want to fight the "war on terror," a John McCain presidency would be good for al Qaeda and war profiteers and bad for the United States and those of us who want peace.
Conservative economic policies, which McCain would continue, have been a disaster for all but the wealthiest of Americans. While promising much, they have delivered little for the man on the street. Continuing them for four more years would be worse than foolish on the part of the American voters. And the Bush foreign policy, which McCain would also continue, would not make America safer and would ultimately deplete our treasury.
The "empathy deficit" that Barack Obama talks about would continue. America would continue to be hated around the world, and instead of repairing the damage that Reagan-Bush conservatism has done to the country and the world, we would have to wait four more years to begin the healing, all the while holding our breath and hoping we will be able to survive four more years.
But even as I was saying it, I realized I didn't really mean it. A John McCain presidency would be a disaster. Sure, it wouldn't be as bad as a Rudy Giuliani presidency, which might get us embroiled in World War III while destroying the domestic economy, or a Mitt Romney presidency, which would complete the corporate takeover of this country, or a (heaven forbid!) Mike Huckabee presidency which would take "faith-based" to a new and frightening level.
John McCain might stop torture as official U.S. policy and address the issue of climate change in some fashion. Nonetheless, in so many other areas, a McCain presidency would do terrible things to us as a country including:
*Keeping our troops and treasure bound up in Iraq indefinitely.
*Continuing the health care crisis by instituting only "market-based" and "tax- based" reforms, which would do nothing to help those who can least afford health care.
*Continuing the current tax cuts, which put a much higher tax burden on the middle and working classes, continue to grow the deficit, widen the divide between rich and poor, and mortgage our children's future.
*Appointing radical right wing judges to the Supreme Court who would abandon the longstanding respect for issues of privacy, favor corporate rights over individual rights, and continue the effort to give the president increasingly more power than the Congress.
A John McCain presidency, simply by continuing Republican ownership of the White House, would be good news for corporations and bad news for individuals, good for the wealthy and bad for the poor, good for oil companies and bad for the planet, good for CEO's and bad for hourly wage workers, and as much as he may want to fight the "war on terror," a John McCain presidency would be good for al Qaeda and war profiteers and bad for the United States and those of us who want peace.
Conservative economic policies, which McCain would continue, have been a disaster for all but the wealthiest of Americans. While promising much, they have delivered little for the man on the street. Continuing them for four more years would be worse than foolish on the part of the American voters. And the Bush foreign policy, which McCain would also continue, would not make America safer and would ultimately deplete our treasury.
The "empathy deficit" that Barack Obama talks about would continue. America would continue to be hated around the world, and instead of repairing the damage that Reagan-Bush conservatism has done to the country and the world, we would have to wait four more years to begin the healing, all the while holding our breath and hoping we will be able to survive four more years.
The essential deficit in this country
Oh, how I would love to hear this kind of rhetoric for the next four years. I so hope we don't blow this opportunity to renew America. From Barack Obama's sermon yesterday at Ebenezer Baptist Church.......
Unity is the great need of the hour - the great need of this hour. Not because it sounds pleasant or because it makes us feel good, but because it's the only way we can overcome the essential deficit that exists in this country.
I'm not talking about a budget deficit. I'm not talking about a trade deficit. I'm not talking about a deficit of good ideas or new plans.
I'm talking about a moral deficit. I'm talking about an empathy deficit. I'm taking about an inability to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we are our brother's keeper; we are our sister's keeper; that, in the words of Dr. King, weare all tied together in a single garment of destiny.
We have an empathy deficit when we're still sending our children down corridors of shame - schools in the forgotten corners of America where the color of your skin still affects the content of your education.
We have a deficit when CEOs are making more in ten minutes than some workers make in ten months; when families lose their homes so that lenders make a profit; when mothers can't afford a doctor when their
children get sick.
We have a deficit in this country when there is Scooter Libby justice for some and Jena justice for others; when our children see nooses hanging from a schoolyard tree today, in the present, in the twenty-first century.
We have a deficit when homeless veterans sleep on the streets of our cities; when innocents are slaughtered in the deserts of Darfur; when young Americans serve tour after tour of duty in a war that should've never been authorized and never been waged.
And we have a deficit when it takes a breach in our levees to reveal a breach in our compassion; when it takes a terrible storm to reveal the hungry that God calls on us to feed; the sick He calls on us to care for; the least of these He commands that we treat as our own.
So we have a deficit to close. We have walls - barriers to justice and equality - that must come down. And to do this, we know that unity is the great need of this hour.
Sunday, January 20, 2008
Thoughts as we move through the primary season
The two establishment candidates won yesterday: McCain in South Carolina, Clinton in Nevada.
McCain won by appealing to those who want to continue the war indefinitely. Clinton won by subtly using the race and gender cards and by taking advantage of Obama's "Reagan" statement.
Both candidates supported the war in Iraq and both will preserve the status quo here at home and in Iraq more than any of the other candidates. Both, therefore, are not a threat to corporate America, nor the best hope for restoring the prosperity of the middle class or America's reputation in the world. If you doubt that they are the establishment candidates, just watch what kind of coverage they get by the establishment media, compared to the coverage the other candidates get. It is subtle, but it is real. The press loves McCain and has not, to my knowledge, reported anything negative about him. And while the press dislikes Clinton, they have given her more coverage than most other candidates. With Hillary Clinton, even negative coverage energizes her many female supporters, who see the press as unfair to her because she's a woman.
Some things to consider as we move forward:
A Clinton – McCain race would be very bad for the peace movement and for any hope of removing our troops from Iraq any time soon.
Despite my hopes, and the hopes of many, that this election might well prove that a black candidate could win a major party nomination and the presidential election, I fear we will find by February 5th that a black candidate still is not viable.
As much as she may be counting on the above fact as she savors her win in Nevada, I fear Hillary Clinton will soon find that a woman candidate is still not viable.
We are also learning that a libertarian is not viable, a populist is not viable, and will soon learn that a Mormon is not viable.
If the race continues to elevate McCain and Clinton as the candidates of the major parties, there will be contemplation of vice presidential picks and this could be the most important decision made by the candidates.
In order to win evangelical votes, McCain may have to choose Huckabee. With McCain's age and health problems, Huckabee could very well become president before the end of McCain's term. I can think of few people less qualified for the presidency, except of course for George W. Bush, who could be Huckabee's equal in that category. And we all know what a disaster that has been.
Hillary Clinton, for her part, will probably pick Bill Richardson, or some other dutiful and loyal Clintonite. She will never pick Obama for a number of reasons, not least of which is the bad blood that is increasing between them, mostly because of her campaign's tactics and her husband's statements. Furthermore, as Bill will undoubtedly be her most trusted advisor and the de facto vice president, any man (and it will be a man) who accepts the bid will have to accept that and be content to stay in the background. Obama would not do well in that position – he is too much of a leader and has too many ambitions himself.
A final note on the effect of a vice presidential pick on the Clinton campaign. Anyone who thinks Hillary Clinton will get a lot of men to vote for her in the general election is not counting on the effect of seeing Clinton in the top spot and a man in a subservient position on the ticket. This will not sit well with many men, especially republicans and independents who might otherwise vote democratic this year. It might not even go over well with some democrats. I hate to admit that, but it is a real possibility.
I'm not ready to count Obama out just yet. I counted Clinton out after Iowa and that was obviously premature. But things are looking like they are leaning Clinton's way. She and her husband are running a campaign that knows how to win, even with tactics that were once used against them. Look how easily they shifted from an unsuccessful strategy of "inevitability" to a more successful strategy of "come from behind." They publicly prepared for a loss in New Hampshire, thus emerging as the "surprise" victor (this gets tons of press), and then made it appear Obama would win in Nevada with those "unfair" casino caucuses, making Hillary's win all the more miraculous. And the former president's angry and undignified outbursts before every election only seem to galvanize Hillary's support.
A McCain vs. Clinton general election, which appears increasingly likely, will generate much destruction. As mentioned above, the peace movement will be dealt a serious blow. The middle class will lose, as corporate America continues to enrich itself at their expense. And the two minorities who had great hopes of finally achieving the presidency this year could be big, big losers.
If Obama loses the nomination, it is liable to be a long time before an African American has another opportunity to be the party nominee, unless the next presidency is a disaster and Obama comes back in 2012. In addition, the Clinton campaign has pitted Latino voters against African American voters, two essential democratic constituencies. It will be hard to heal this in time for the general election, or even over the next four years.
And if Hillary Clinton is the nominee and loses to John McCain in the general, women will be dealt a huge setback in their quest to elect a woman president. If such a powerful and high profile woman cannot win the presidency against a 71 year old man, what woman can? You can bet the democrats will not nominate a woman for a good long time.
What started out as hope for a transformative election, may turn out to be no different than every other election. With the press solidly behind him (they love McCain and hate Clinton) the establishment candidate (white, male, pro-corporation, anti-people) will probably win, and the rest of us will lose.
There will be no fresh ideas for reforming health care, no wise course in foreign policy, no return to a progressive tax structure, and the guarantee of an increasingly divided country. The same old pro-free market, anti regulation, raise the deficit, fund endless war economics will continue and we are likely to suffer more recessions.
I really hope I'm wrong.
McCain won by appealing to those who want to continue the war indefinitely. Clinton won by subtly using the race and gender cards and by taking advantage of Obama's "Reagan" statement.
Both candidates supported the war in Iraq and both will preserve the status quo here at home and in Iraq more than any of the other candidates. Both, therefore, are not a threat to corporate America, nor the best hope for restoring the prosperity of the middle class or America's reputation in the world. If you doubt that they are the establishment candidates, just watch what kind of coverage they get by the establishment media, compared to the coverage the other candidates get. It is subtle, but it is real. The press loves McCain and has not, to my knowledge, reported anything negative about him. And while the press dislikes Clinton, they have given her more coverage than most other candidates. With Hillary Clinton, even negative coverage energizes her many female supporters, who see the press as unfair to her because she's a woman.
Some things to consider as we move forward:
A Clinton – McCain race would be very bad for the peace movement and for any hope of removing our troops from Iraq any time soon.
Despite my hopes, and the hopes of many, that this election might well prove that a black candidate could win a major party nomination and the presidential election, I fear we will find by February 5th that a black candidate still is not viable.
As much as she may be counting on the above fact as she savors her win in Nevada, I fear Hillary Clinton will soon find that a woman candidate is still not viable.
We are also learning that a libertarian is not viable, a populist is not viable, and will soon learn that a Mormon is not viable.
If the race continues to elevate McCain and Clinton as the candidates of the major parties, there will be contemplation of vice presidential picks and this could be the most important decision made by the candidates.
In order to win evangelical votes, McCain may have to choose Huckabee. With McCain's age and health problems, Huckabee could very well become president before the end of McCain's term. I can think of few people less qualified for the presidency, except of course for George W. Bush, who could be Huckabee's equal in that category. And we all know what a disaster that has been.
Hillary Clinton, for her part, will probably pick Bill Richardson, or some other dutiful and loyal Clintonite. She will never pick Obama for a number of reasons, not least of which is the bad blood that is increasing between them, mostly because of her campaign's tactics and her husband's statements. Furthermore, as Bill will undoubtedly be her most trusted advisor and the de facto vice president, any man (and it will be a man) who accepts the bid will have to accept that and be content to stay in the background. Obama would not do well in that position – he is too much of a leader and has too many ambitions himself.
A final note on the effect of a vice presidential pick on the Clinton campaign. Anyone who thinks Hillary Clinton will get a lot of men to vote for her in the general election is not counting on the effect of seeing Clinton in the top spot and a man in a subservient position on the ticket. This will not sit well with many men, especially republicans and independents who might otherwise vote democratic this year. It might not even go over well with some democrats. I hate to admit that, but it is a real possibility.
I'm not ready to count Obama out just yet. I counted Clinton out after Iowa and that was obviously premature. But things are looking like they are leaning Clinton's way. She and her husband are running a campaign that knows how to win, even with tactics that were once used against them. Look how easily they shifted from an unsuccessful strategy of "inevitability" to a more successful strategy of "come from behind." They publicly prepared for a loss in New Hampshire, thus emerging as the "surprise" victor (this gets tons of press), and then made it appear Obama would win in Nevada with those "unfair" casino caucuses, making Hillary's win all the more miraculous. And the former president's angry and undignified outbursts before every election only seem to galvanize Hillary's support.
A McCain vs. Clinton general election, which appears increasingly likely, will generate much destruction. As mentioned above, the peace movement will be dealt a serious blow. The middle class will lose, as corporate America continues to enrich itself at their expense. And the two minorities who had great hopes of finally achieving the presidency this year could be big, big losers.
If Obama loses the nomination, it is liable to be a long time before an African American has another opportunity to be the party nominee, unless the next presidency is a disaster and Obama comes back in 2012. In addition, the Clinton campaign has pitted Latino voters against African American voters, two essential democratic constituencies. It will be hard to heal this in time for the general election, or even over the next four years.
And if Hillary Clinton is the nominee and loses to John McCain in the general, women will be dealt a huge setback in their quest to elect a woman president. If such a powerful and high profile woman cannot win the presidency against a 71 year old man, what woman can? You can bet the democrats will not nominate a woman for a good long time.
What started out as hope for a transformative election, may turn out to be no different than every other election. With the press solidly behind him (they love McCain and hate Clinton) the establishment candidate (white, male, pro-corporation, anti-people) will probably win, and the rest of us will lose.
There will be no fresh ideas for reforming health care, no wise course in foreign policy, no return to a progressive tax structure, and the guarantee of an increasingly divided country. The same old pro-free market, anti regulation, raise the deficit, fund endless war economics will continue and we are likely to suffer more recessions.
I really hope I'm wrong.
Saturday, January 19, 2008
Restoring dignity to the Clinton campaign
It's about time!
Rahm Emmanuel and Ted Kennedy have advised Bill Clinton to stop the attacks on Obama, indicating this is not an appropriate role for a former president.
Rahm Emmanuel and Ted Kennedy have advised Bill Clinton to stop the attacks on Obama, indicating this is not an appropriate role for a former president.
A tale of two parties
In just a few short weeks we may know who the Republican and Democratic presidential nominees are – or not.
This is a strange election year. There is no clear front runner in either party, as the voters in each party are divided.
However, what divides the voters in the Democratic Party is very different from what divides the voters in the Republican Party.
Read entire article at Outraged Citizen.
This is a strange election year. There is no clear front runner in either party, as the voters in each party are divided.
However, what divides the voters in the Democratic Party is very different from what divides the voters in the Republican Party.
Read entire article at Outraged Citizen.
Behind the smears: what's really at stake for Hillary Clinton
Apparently, Obama isn't the only one to speak positively of Ronald Reagan. Hillary and Bill have too. Yet now they are attacking Obama for what he said about the similarity between this election and the election in which Reagan came to power, and using it against him.
What is becoming clear to me regarding these petty personal attacks, including taking things out of context, overreacting, and deliberately misinterpreting (dare we say spinning?) things the other candidates say, is happening because the three candidates still in the running are basically all proposing the same types of policies. (Kucinich, who is also still in the running is proposing quite different policies and he is therefore simply ignored.) Because there is so little of substance that is really different between them, they must find other reasons to get people to vote for them. And since the stakes are so high, every word, every phrase of each of the candidates is under intense scrutiny by each of the other candidates.
The biggest offender here, although they all participate to some extent, is Senator Clinton. She, her campaign surrogates, and her husband, are all using every opportunity they can to attack Obama because they have the most to lose. Obama has a real chance to get the nominiation which makes him their biggest threat, the one who could take away their dream of re-occupying the White House, which is why they attack him far more than they attack Edwards.
There is so much for them to lose, so much that they have been counting on for nearly eight years: a chance to vindicate the former president, a chance to get even with their enemies by once again wielding power, a chance to implement all the ideas they couldn't implement in the nineties because they were under attack the whole time, a chance to rewrite their legacies. For Hillary, it is also a chance to show the country and indeed the entire world that she is not a victim, but instead the most powerful person in the world.
This is heady stuff, and the thought of achieving it so intoxicating that it seems to have caused her and her husband to lose all objectivity and, in the case of the former president, a great deal of dignity.
Hillary says she is running for president because she cares about the country. I don't doubt her sincerity in saying this as I think she actually believes it. But as a psychotherapist, I know that the real reasons people do things are often below their full awareness. We know that was true of George W. Bush, not only in his desire to run for president, but in his decision to go to war against a country that was not an immediate threat. And now, I fear, Hillary and Bill are attempting to bring their unfinished psychological business to the White House.
This is why you see so many underhanded attacks against Obama, and so much anger on the part of the former president, anger we were told about but didn't really see in his own campaigns, nor in his time in the White House. The years of planning for this potential victory, including victory over their adversaries, the ultimate payback, was within their grasp when this young (though slightly older than Bill Clinton when he ran for president in 1992) upstart dared to challenge them. At first, they didn't realize how much he would appeal to the nation, yes in much the same way that Ronald Reagan appealed to the nation. This is one reason why they are pouncing on the Reagan comments. It isn't just that they want to attack the bogeyman of progressives; it's that they can't let the story line be about a transformative election.
You can see their frustration and anger in their words and their tactics. They simply can't let Obama win. To have their long dreamed of vindication and a return to power stolen from them by this young charismatic candidate is unthinkable. The humiliation would be unbearable.
There is more at stake here than most people realize, and the Clintons are fighters. Anyone who doubts that ought to look back at the impeachment fiasco. Any other president would probably have resigned. Not Bill Clinton.
Any other first lady would have been mortified and gone into retirement. Not Hillary. She imediately began plans to run for the Senate, and now she wants the most powerful job in the world.
If Obama wins in Nevada or South Carolina, expect the smears and attacks to escalate. These people are not quitters, and they have no intention of being losers.
What is becoming clear to me regarding these petty personal attacks, including taking things out of context, overreacting, and deliberately misinterpreting (dare we say spinning?) things the other candidates say, is happening because the three candidates still in the running are basically all proposing the same types of policies. (Kucinich, who is also still in the running is proposing quite different policies and he is therefore simply ignored.) Because there is so little of substance that is really different between them, they must find other reasons to get people to vote for them. And since the stakes are so high, every word, every phrase of each of the candidates is under intense scrutiny by each of the other candidates.
The biggest offender here, although they all participate to some extent, is Senator Clinton. She, her campaign surrogates, and her husband, are all using every opportunity they can to attack Obama because they have the most to lose. Obama has a real chance to get the nominiation which makes him their biggest threat, the one who could take away their dream of re-occupying the White House, which is why they attack him far more than they attack Edwards.
There is so much for them to lose, so much that they have been counting on for nearly eight years: a chance to vindicate the former president, a chance to get even with their enemies by once again wielding power, a chance to implement all the ideas they couldn't implement in the nineties because they were under attack the whole time, a chance to rewrite their legacies. For Hillary, it is also a chance to show the country and indeed the entire world that she is not a victim, but instead the most powerful person in the world.
This is heady stuff, and the thought of achieving it so intoxicating that it seems to have caused her and her husband to lose all objectivity and, in the case of the former president, a great deal of dignity.
Hillary says she is running for president because she cares about the country. I don't doubt her sincerity in saying this as I think she actually believes it. But as a psychotherapist, I know that the real reasons people do things are often below their full awareness. We know that was true of George W. Bush, not only in his desire to run for president, but in his decision to go to war against a country that was not an immediate threat. And now, I fear, Hillary and Bill are attempting to bring their unfinished psychological business to the White House.
This is why you see so many underhanded attacks against Obama, and so much anger on the part of the former president, anger we were told about but didn't really see in his own campaigns, nor in his time in the White House. The years of planning for this potential victory, including victory over their adversaries, the ultimate payback, was within their grasp when this young (though slightly older than Bill Clinton when he ran for president in 1992) upstart dared to challenge them. At first, they didn't realize how much he would appeal to the nation, yes in much the same way that Ronald Reagan appealed to the nation. This is one reason why they are pouncing on the Reagan comments. It isn't just that they want to attack the bogeyman of progressives; it's that they can't let the story line be about a transformative election.
You can see their frustration and anger in their words and their tactics. They simply can't let Obama win. To have their long dreamed of vindication and a return to power stolen from them by this young charismatic candidate is unthinkable. The humiliation would be unbearable.
There is more at stake here than most people realize, and the Clintons are fighters. Anyone who doubts that ought to look back at the impeachment fiasco. Any other president would probably have resigned. Not Bill Clinton.
Any other first lady would have been mortified and gone into retirement. Not Hillary. She imediately began plans to run for the Senate, and now she wants the most powerful job in the world.
If Obama wins in Nevada or South Carolina, expect the smears and attacks to escalate. These people are not quitters, and they have no intention of being losers.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Barack's strange Reagan comments
When I heard the first snippets of the comments Barack Obama made about Ronald Reagan, and these times being similar to 1980, in terms of the country's desire for change, I tended to agree with him. The 1980 election certainly changed the direction of the country, and the people today seem to want to change directions. (How could they not after 8 years of Bush, war, and now recession?)
But a closer look at what he said has me puzzled. Here, in part, is what Obama said:
Enough criticism has already been made of this mischaracterization of the Reagan message and the Reagan appeal, and this comment by Obama has caused a lot of concern among those of us who support him. Some have even tried to figure out if Obama is playing out some strategy that we just don't understand.
Whatever the reason he made this comment, I would like to see him clarify exactly what he meant and what he actually thinks of the Reagan legacy. I know that might cost him some votes in the general election among Reagan supporters who still accept the Reagan myth, and do not see the terrible damage he inflicted on the country, but Obama will never get to the general unless he satisfies members of his own party who see the Reagan legacy as absolutely disastrous.
But a closer look at what he said has me puzzled. Here, in part, is what Obama said:
He [Reagan] put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.
Enough criticism has already been made of this mischaracterization of the Reagan message and the Reagan appeal, and this comment by Obama has caused a lot of concern among those of us who support him. Some have even tried to figure out if Obama is playing out some strategy that we just don't understand.
Whatever the reason he made this comment, I would like to see him clarify exactly what he meant and what he actually thinks of the Reagan legacy. I know that might cost him some votes in the general election among Reagan supporters who still accept the Reagan myth, and do not see the terrible damage he inflicted on the country, but Obama will never get to the general unless he satisfies members of his own party who see the Reagan legacy as absolutely disastrous.
Thursday, January 17, 2008
One solution fits all
Ever notice how the right wing free market trickle down politicians have a one solution fits all approach to the economy? When the government had a huge surplus, Greenspan was worried that this might be a problem. Right wing politicians' solution: huge tax cuts, especially for the wealthy.
Now that we are either in or on the verge of a huge slowdown, if not recession, with enormous budget deficits, the same politicians are suggesting that what the economy needs is to make the tax cuts permanent.
Now I'm not an economist, but I just don't get it.
How can the solution to two completely different problems be exactly the same thing, both of which benefit the wealthy far more than the poor, and enrich corporations far more than individuals?
The bozos who use that kind of logic might also think the appropriate response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks was first to wage war against those who sponsored the attacks, and then to wage war against those who didn't.
They wouldn't be that stupid, would they?
Now that we are either in or on the verge of a huge slowdown, if not recession, with enormous budget deficits, the same politicians are suggesting that what the economy needs is to make the tax cuts permanent.
Now I'm not an economist, but I just don't get it.
How can the solution to two completely different problems be exactly the same thing, both of which benefit the wealthy far more than the poor, and enrich corporations far more than individuals?
The bozos who use that kind of logic might also think the appropriate response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks was first to wage war against those who sponsored the attacks, and then to wage war against those who didn't.
They wouldn't be that stupid, would they?
Can this state and mine (California) co-exist in the same country?
Mike Huckabee is now tied with John McCain for the lead in the South Carolina primary.
Here's how he did it. Since he began to campaign in that state he:
Said he wanted to amend the Constitution to bring it in line with God's law.
Bragged about how he cooked squirrel in a popcorn popper in college.
Equated homosexuality with bestiality.
Said no one should tell South Carolina that their racist flag was racist.
Can somebody please explain to me what kind of people live in South Carolina?
Here's how he did it. Since he began to campaign in that state he:
Said he wanted to amend the Constitution to bring it in line with God's law.
Bragged about how he cooked squirrel in a popcorn popper in college.
Equated homosexuality with bestiality.
Said no one should tell South Carolina that their racist flag was racist.
Can somebody please explain to me what kind of people live in South Carolina?
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
No one mourns for the canary
It's just my own observation here, but the country appears to be in bad shape economically.
We have admittedly been in bad shape in many other areas these past seven years. Our politics have been ugly. Our voting rights and reliable voting systems are under attack. Our Constitution has been in shreds. Our emotions have been manipulated by our leaders. Our jobs have been outsourced. Our children have been tested but not educated. Our military has been misused. Our good reputation in the world has been squandered. And all the while we have been looking over our shoulders for the bogey man who the government keeps saying is coming to get us.
But through all of this, we have seen a rising stock market and consistent economic growth. Now, in the opinion of us ordinary plebeians that doesn't mean squat, as wealthy people can benefit from such an economy even when the rest of us are losing jobs and houses. Such is our current economic system.
But that is all changing.
Now the wealthy are losing money, as the housing crisis is simply affecting too many plebes who, as a result, no longer have enough dollars to keep the economy growing.
You can see it on the street in my town. There simply aren't as many cars headed to the mall. We can't even afford the cheap goods manufactured in China, let alone the gas to drive to the import store, even if the car hasn't been repossessed. And there aren't as many plebes in the stores, even in the grocery stores, as people who have just been handed pink slips eat what they have in the pantry for as long as they can. Along the roads there are foreclosure sale signs, and vacant homes.
And everyone you talk to predicts it is going to get much worse. Talk about consumer confidence!
So in this pyramid scheme we call capitalism, the capitalists are finally feeling the heat. The loan sharks who sold those deceptive and horrible loans to people all too eager to own a home they couldn't otherwise afford are losing their shirts as well as their jobs. And investors who bought packages of those awful loans are finding their portfolios devalued. Banks and loan companies are being bought and sold at fire sale prices, sometimes to oil rich countries in the Gulf. And the Dow is taking big hits. And that means, in a few months, we will probably be told by the government that we are in a recession. Except we plebes already knew that.
We're like the canary in the coal mine. We know first that we are dying, but no one mourns the death of the canary. It's only when the miners start dying that anybody pays attention, but even then little is done to improve things until the mine owners realize that dying miners cost them money.
We have admittedly been in bad shape in many other areas these past seven years. Our politics have been ugly. Our voting rights and reliable voting systems are under attack. Our Constitution has been in shreds. Our emotions have been manipulated by our leaders. Our jobs have been outsourced. Our children have been tested but not educated. Our military has been misused. Our good reputation in the world has been squandered. And all the while we have been looking over our shoulders for the bogey man who the government keeps saying is coming to get us.
But through all of this, we have seen a rising stock market and consistent economic growth. Now, in the opinion of us ordinary plebeians that doesn't mean squat, as wealthy people can benefit from such an economy even when the rest of us are losing jobs and houses. Such is our current economic system.
But that is all changing.
Now the wealthy are losing money, as the housing crisis is simply affecting too many plebes who, as a result, no longer have enough dollars to keep the economy growing.
You can see it on the street in my town. There simply aren't as many cars headed to the mall. We can't even afford the cheap goods manufactured in China, let alone the gas to drive to the import store, even if the car hasn't been repossessed. And there aren't as many plebes in the stores, even in the grocery stores, as people who have just been handed pink slips eat what they have in the pantry for as long as they can. Along the roads there are foreclosure sale signs, and vacant homes.
And everyone you talk to predicts it is going to get much worse. Talk about consumer confidence!
So in this pyramid scheme we call capitalism, the capitalists are finally feeling the heat. The loan sharks who sold those deceptive and horrible loans to people all too eager to own a home they couldn't otherwise afford are losing their shirts as well as their jobs. And investors who bought packages of those awful loans are finding their portfolios devalued. Banks and loan companies are being bought and sold at fire sale prices, sometimes to oil rich countries in the Gulf. And the Dow is taking big hits. And that means, in a few months, we will probably be told by the government that we are in a recession. Except we plebes already knew that.
We're like the canary in the coal mine. We know first that we are dying, but no one mourns the death of the canary. It's only when the miners start dying that anybody pays attention, but even then little is done to improve things until the mine owners realize that dying miners cost them money.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Shouldn't we be past this by now?
Being neither African American nor Jewish, I must admit I don't fully understand the depth of feeling that some people have in the racially tinged controversy going on now between the Clinton and Obama campaigns. The latest salvos, even as the two candidates made statements yesterday intended to calm things down, have come from two Democratic African American leaders, Charlie Rangel and John Lewis, and a columnist from the Washington Post, who seems intent on accusing Obama of being in league with anti-Semites.
It seemed obvious to me from the beginning that, while the Clintons (yes, you still get two for the price of one) were not saying anything directly detrimental regarding Obama, they felt very threatened by Obama's candidacy, especially in the Black community. They obviously wanted to remind African Americans that white politicians like Hillary Clinton were acceptable, and that one didn't need a black president to achieve all of the objectives of the black community. This is why she reminded them that it was a white president who signed civil rights legislation.
But let's back up a step and look at the timeline of events leading up to this controversy.
In December, 2007, Bill Shaheen, Clinton co-chair, brought up Obama's past "drug use" and said it would be used by Republicans in the general election to suggest he had been a drug dealer as well. The drug dealing reference was interpreted by some as a reference to Obama's race (even though there are probably more white drug dealers than black ones) and so Shaheen resigns and Clinton apologizes.
On Jan. 7, 2008, Bill Clinton called Obama's opposition to the Iraq War a "fairy tale" and, probably because of the demeaning tone in which he said this, angered many African American voters who saw this as an attack on Obama's qualifications to be a candidate. (Clinton is a powerful voice in this country, and as a former president, his words carry much weight. When he attacks his wife's opponent in such an emotional outburst, it is going to get a reaction among those who feel kindly towards that opponent.)
On that same day, Hillary Clinton made her famous remark about the importance of Lyndon Johnson to the civil rights movement and angered more African Americans who overreacted to what she was saying. While she acknowledged Dr. King as the leader of the movement, she said "it took a president to get it [civil rights legislation] done." Since all of our presidents have been white, some people heard her comments as saying that while blacks can demonstrate, whites must legislate. I don't believe that is what she was saying, but I do believe she was trying to downplay the importance of having a black president. The Clintons don't say anything they haven't thought of carefully.
On Jan. 10, 2007: Andrew Cuomo, another famous Clinton supporter, explains Hillary's win in New Hampshire by saying, "you can't shuck and jive at a press conference. All those moves you can make with the press don't work when you're in someone's living room." The terms "shuck and jive" were deemed offensive and racist by some in the African American community. That same day, a British newspaper says a Clinton advisor referred to Obama as some people's "imaginary hip black friend."
On Jan. 11th, the Obama campaign suggests these remarks are not accidental, but instead part of a pattern, and the offended South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn says he might rethink his neutrality in the South Carolina primary. Hillary Clinton reacts by saying the Obama campaign is making political hay out of some unfortunate and misinterpreted comments.
On Jan. 13th, Clinton goes on Meet the Press and says the Obama campaign is distorting things but on that same day, in South Carolina, BET founder Robert Johnson, on the stage with Hillary Clinton, makes some even more inflammatory remarks, saying that the Clintons were supporting black causes when Obama was (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) "doing something in the neighborhood." Most Obama supporters believe this was a not-so-thinly disguised reference to Obama's admitted drug use as a teenager, though Johnson denies it. Johnson also made a reference to America not needing some "Sidney Poitier guess who's coming to dinner" kind of candidate, and I'll let you all figure out what that meant.
Understandably, Obama's campaign has responded to these comments by Clinton, her husband, and her supporters, and even used them to fund raise. Would any Democrat expect him not to respond after the damage we saw four years ago from the "Swift Boat Veterans?" Obama has to prove he can stand up to overt as well as covert attacks, and it is obvious that many attacks against him, especially from those in his own party, have been covert. If he can't respond quickly to Clinton, how can he respond quickly and effectively to the Republican smear machine? And while I am sure Obama is capitalizing on this politically, I don't think anyone can accuse him of starting the whole sordid mess.
Yet even after yesterday's "truce" between the candidates, you have John Lewis attacking Obama on the News Hour last night and Charlie Rangel calling Obama "stupid" this morning on CNN.
And now this new twist: Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen has today attacked Obama for his association with Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ and its minister, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. Wright's daughter is the editor of Trumpet Magazine, a church publication that gave Louis Farrakhan an award, and Rev. Wright has apparently spoken highly of Farrakhan. Since Farrakhan has made some atrocious anti-Semitic statements, Cohen is saying that Obama's association with the Chicago church is troubling, even though there is absolutely nothing in Obama's past or in any of his writings or speeches today associating him in any way with Farrakhan or his viewpoints. Cohen is applying a different standard to Obama than all the other candidates, who have not been asked to distance themselves from opinions of pastors or other people in their churches. Must each candidate's church be examined for evidence of something offensive? If so, the candidates would all be spending time distancing themselves from their churches.
Cohen's column, though, is not about the candidates' religious affiliations, nor about any danger posed to the Jewish community by the candidacy of Obama. It is rather an obvious attempt to discredit Obama and follow up on the mass emails (like the one forwarded by a staffer in the Clinton campaign) saying Obama was Muslim or "part-Muslim" and implying he was therefore an enemy of Christians and Jews. It is an attempt to hurt Obama and help Clinton and most of the Republicans, whom Cohen sees as friendlier to Israel.
Cohen challenged Obama to condemn the actions of his church and now we have this response from the candidate which should stop things, but probably won't:
So where do we go from here? We aren't even two weeks into the primary season and already race has become a huge issue, not only between the candidates and their surrogates, but in the media, which loves to cover the down and dirty aspects of campaigns.
We haven't really come that far, have we? Like ignorant and uneducated throwbacks to the nineteenth century, we are still ready to pit brother against brother over issues of race (and if Hillary Clinton is the nominee we will see attacks based on gender, with sister vs. sister). And our candidates seem to be willing to say and do anything to win – and on this I put more blame on the Clintons than I do on Obama. Obama may have defended himself, his campaign perhaps even overreacting to ambiguous statements, but I simply can't see how he started it. And the acrimony that comes through in the voices of Charlie Rangel and John Lewis, people I admire greatly, when they attack Obama for reacting to what can be characterized as covert smears is something I don't understand. Neither do I understand the condescending way Bill Clinton talks about Obama, unless he is acting as a protective husband defending his wife's honor, something he certainly didn't think about eight years ago. Bill Clinton would do his wife's campaign an enormous service if he would keep his mouth shut. And if she wants to win, she ought to see that he does.
Furthermore, people like Robert Johnson, Charlie Rangel and John Lewis don't help the black community by voicing such anger towards the first viable African American presidential candidate, nor does Richard Cohen help anything with such provocative columns. None of them help unify the country, which interestingly enough is something the man they attack is trying to do.
While not too long ago I was enormously proud to say I belonged to the party that was putting forth the first serious woman candidate and the first serious African American candidate for president, today I am enormously embarrassed to belong to that party, embarrassed to be part of a political system that plays such ugly games, and embarassed to be part of a species that can be so destructive to other members of the species. Maybe tomorrow I'l feel differently, but that's how I feel today.
It seemed obvious to me from the beginning that, while the Clintons (yes, you still get two for the price of one) were not saying anything directly detrimental regarding Obama, they felt very threatened by Obama's candidacy, especially in the Black community. They obviously wanted to remind African Americans that white politicians like Hillary Clinton were acceptable, and that one didn't need a black president to achieve all of the objectives of the black community. This is why she reminded them that it was a white president who signed civil rights legislation.
But let's back up a step and look at the timeline of events leading up to this controversy.
In December, 2007, Bill Shaheen, Clinton co-chair, brought up Obama's past "drug use" and said it would be used by Republicans in the general election to suggest he had been a drug dealer as well. The drug dealing reference was interpreted by some as a reference to Obama's race (even though there are probably more white drug dealers than black ones) and so Shaheen resigns and Clinton apologizes.
On Jan. 7, 2008, Bill Clinton called Obama's opposition to the Iraq War a "fairy tale" and, probably because of the demeaning tone in which he said this, angered many African American voters who saw this as an attack on Obama's qualifications to be a candidate. (Clinton is a powerful voice in this country, and as a former president, his words carry much weight. When he attacks his wife's opponent in such an emotional outburst, it is going to get a reaction among those who feel kindly towards that opponent.)
On that same day, Hillary Clinton made her famous remark about the importance of Lyndon Johnson to the civil rights movement and angered more African Americans who overreacted to what she was saying. While she acknowledged Dr. King as the leader of the movement, she said "it took a president to get it [civil rights legislation] done." Since all of our presidents have been white, some people heard her comments as saying that while blacks can demonstrate, whites must legislate. I don't believe that is what she was saying, but I do believe she was trying to downplay the importance of having a black president. The Clintons don't say anything they haven't thought of carefully.
On Jan. 10, 2007: Andrew Cuomo, another famous Clinton supporter, explains Hillary's win in New Hampshire by saying, "you can't shuck and jive at a press conference. All those moves you can make with the press don't work when you're in someone's living room." The terms "shuck and jive" were deemed offensive and racist by some in the African American community. That same day, a British newspaper says a Clinton advisor referred to Obama as some people's "imaginary hip black friend."
On Jan. 11th, the Obama campaign suggests these remarks are not accidental, but instead part of a pattern, and the offended South Carolina Rep. Jim Clyburn says he might rethink his neutrality in the South Carolina primary. Hillary Clinton reacts by saying the Obama campaign is making political hay out of some unfortunate and misinterpreted comments.
On Jan. 13th, Clinton goes on Meet the Press and says the Obama campaign is distorting things but on that same day, in South Carolina, BET founder Robert Johnson, on the stage with Hillary Clinton, makes some even more inflammatory remarks, saying that the Clintons were supporting black causes when Obama was (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) "doing something in the neighborhood." Most Obama supporters believe this was a not-so-thinly disguised reference to Obama's admitted drug use as a teenager, though Johnson denies it. Johnson also made a reference to America not needing some "Sidney Poitier guess who's coming to dinner" kind of candidate, and I'll let you all figure out what that meant.
Understandably, Obama's campaign has responded to these comments by Clinton, her husband, and her supporters, and even used them to fund raise. Would any Democrat expect him not to respond after the damage we saw four years ago from the "Swift Boat Veterans?" Obama has to prove he can stand up to overt as well as covert attacks, and it is obvious that many attacks against him, especially from those in his own party, have been covert. If he can't respond quickly to Clinton, how can he respond quickly and effectively to the Republican smear machine? And while I am sure Obama is capitalizing on this politically, I don't think anyone can accuse him of starting the whole sordid mess.
Yet even after yesterday's "truce" between the candidates, you have John Lewis attacking Obama on the News Hour last night and Charlie Rangel calling Obama "stupid" this morning on CNN.
And now this new twist: Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen has today attacked Obama for his association with Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ and its minister, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. Wright's daughter is the editor of Trumpet Magazine, a church publication that gave Louis Farrakhan an award, and Rev. Wright has apparently spoken highly of Farrakhan. Since Farrakhan has made some atrocious anti-Semitic statements, Cohen is saying that Obama's association with the Chicago church is troubling, even though there is absolutely nothing in Obama's past or in any of his writings or speeches today associating him in any way with Farrakhan or his viewpoints. Cohen is applying a different standard to Obama than all the other candidates, who have not been asked to distance themselves from opinions of pastors or other people in their churches. Must each candidate's church be examined for evidence of something offensive? If so, the candidates would all be spending time distancing themselves from their churches.
Cohen's column, though, is not about the candidates' religious affiliations, nor about any danger posed to the Jewish community by the candidacy of Obama. It is rather an obvious attempt to discredit Obama and follow up on the mass emails (like the one forwarded by a staffer in the Clinton campaign) saying Obama was Muslim or "part-Muslim" and implying he was therefore an enemy of Christians and Jews. It is an attempt to hurt Obama and help Clinton and most of the Republicans, whom Cohen sees as friendlier to Israel.
Cohen challenged Obama to condemn the actions of his church and now we have this response from the candidate which should stop things, but probably won't:
I decry racism and anti-Semitism in every form and strongly condemn the anti-Semitic statements made by Minister Farrakhan. I assume that Trumpet Magazine made its own decision to honor Farrakhan based on his efforts to rehabilitate ex-offenders, but it is not a decision with which I agree.
So where do we go from here? We aren't even two weeks into the primary season and already race has become a huge issue, not only between the candidates and their surrogates, but in the media, which loves to cover the down and dirty aspects of campaigns.
We haven't really come that far, have we? Like ignorant and uneducated throwbacks to the nineteenth century, we are still ready to pit brother against brother over issues of race (and if Hillary Clinton is the nominee we will see attacks based on gender, with sister vs. sister). And our candidates seem to be willing to say and do anything to win – and on this I put more blame on the Clintons than I do on Obama. Obama may have defended himself, his campaign perhaps even overreacting to ambiguous statements, but I simply can't see how he started it. And the acrimony that comes through in the voices of Charlie Rangel and John Lewis, people I admire greatly, when they attack Obama for reacting to what can be characterized as covert smears is something I don't understand. Neither do I understand the condescending way Bill Clinton talks about Obama, unless he is acting as a protective husband defending his wife's honor, something he certainly didn't think about eight years ago. Bill Clinton would do his wife's campaign an enormous service if he would keep his mouth shut. And if she wants to win, she ought to see that he does.
Furthermore, people like Robert Johnson, Charlie Rangel and John Lewis don't help the black community by voicing such anger towards the first viable African American presidential candidate, nor does Richard Cohen help anything with such provocative columns. None of them help unify the country, which interestingly enough is something the man they attack is trying to do.
While not too long ago I was enormously proud to say I belonged to the party that was putting forth the first serious woman candidate and the first serious African American candidate for president, today I am enormously embarrassed to belong to that party, embarrassed to be part of a political system that plays such ugly games, and embarassed to be part of a species that can be so destructive to other members of the species. Maybe tomorrow I'l feel differently, but that's how I feel today.
Amending the Constitution for God
Huckabee supposedly said last night at a campaign event in Michigan that the Constitution should be amended to ban both abortion and gay marriage to keep it in line with God.
Said Huck: "And that's what we need to do, is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards."
I didn't know it was an either-or, as in either we have to change the Constitution to get in line with what some people think are God's laws, or we have to change God's laws. What a bunch of ridiculous nonsense.
God's laws are perfectly fine the way they are, though there remains some disgreement about what they are. For example, while many people think abortion violates the law that thou shalt not kill, many of these same people think war does not.
Nevertheless, there is no reason that the Constitution must be in line with God's laws, whatever they really are. The Constitution is a secular document, not a religious document. I suspect Huck has never read it and is one of the millions of dolts in this country who mistakenly think God or the commandments are invoked in the Constitution.
If he did say this, Huckabee's candidacy has to be crushed. Bush with his coded language and fake religiosity was bad enough - this guy is certifiable. Amending the Constitution for religious reasons is one of the most dangerous things I can think of.
Said Huck: "And that's what we need to do, is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards."
I didn't know it was an either-or, as in either we have to change the Constitution to get in line with what some people think are God's laws, or we have to change God's laws. What a bunch of ridiculous nonsense.
God's laws are perfectly fine the way they are, though there remains some disgreement about what they are. For example, while many people think abortion violates the law that thou shalt not kill, many of these same people think war does not.
Nevertheless, there is no reason that the Constitution must be in line with God's laws, whatever they really are. The Constitution is a secular document, not a religious document. I suspect Huck has never read it and is one of the millions of dolts in this country who mistakenly think God or the commandments are invoked in the Constitution.
If he did say this, Huckabee's candidacy has to be crushed. Bush with his coded language and fake religiosity was bad enough - this guy is certifiable. Amending the Constitution for religious reasons is one of the most dangerous things I can think of.
Monday, January 14, 2008
Knock it off!
Nothing, nothing, nothing,..... in the upcoming presidential election is more important for this country than kicking the Republican Party out of the White House.
Whether the nominee is Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, or Al Gore in a white cape coming to rescue us from the current nonsense going on in the campaign doesn't matter. Any of them would be better than any of the Republicans including McCain, who may be moderate on some issues, but cannot be considered a moderate on the war in Iraq, where he wouldn't mind staying for 100 years.
So two things need to change or Democrats will destroy themselves before the national election.
First, Hillary has to get Bill and her supporters and campaign advisors to stop with the coded language about race and the trashing of Obama. I was also going to suggest Obama do what he could to cool things off but it seems he has already done that. The media seems to be itching for an Obama vs. Hillary fight, so both of these candidates need to pull back from the attacks on each other and focus on their own policies and campaigns. We don't want one of them so wounded going into the general that they can't recover, with the supporters of their Democratic opponent so angry at the destruction of their own candidate that they refuse to show up at the polls. This is the reason Ronald Reagan instituted an 11th Commandment (Thou shalt not attack a fellow republican) in his party.
Second, Democrats need to look beyond race and gender in deciding whom to support. It seems there are many women who are supporting Hillary Clinton just because she is a woman. I think that's as big a mistake as not supporting her because she's a woman. If she's the best one for the job, and electable because of her policies and character, great. If she's not the best one for the job and the American people decide to vote for a Republican as a result, then ladies we will not end up with the first woman president but with the first female nominee and that is not good enough - for feminism, for women, but especially for the country. That's simply not a risk any of us should take because nothing, nothing, nothing is more important than electing a Democrat this time around.
Likewise, Barack Obama should not be supported or opposed just because he is black, or not "black enough." While I think it is very important for our country to finally electe a black president, just as I think it is important to finally elect a woman, these aren't more important than dumping the Republicans. The mess we are in because of a criminal Republican administration, an illegal war, a failing economy, and an attempt to make the president a monarch, makes it crucial to restore the Constitution - and sanity - by electing a Democrat.
I ask all Democrats - and especially Hillary, Bill, and Barack, as well as their supporters and advisors, to knock it off and restore some dignity to this campaign so that whoever wins the nomination will have the best possible chance of defeating the insane party that has nearly destroyed the Constitution and the country.
Whether the nominee is Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, or Al Gore in a white cape coming to rescue us from the current nonsense going on in the campaign doesn't matter. Any of them would be better than any of the Republicans including McCain, who may be moderate on some issues, but cannot be considered a moderate on the war in Iraq, where he wouldn't mind staying for 100 years.
So two things need to change or Democrats will destroy themselves before the national election.
First, Hillary has to get Bill and her supporters and campaign advisors to stop with the coded language about race and the trashing of Obama. I was also going to suggest Obama do what he could to cool things off but it seems he has already done that. The media seems to be itching for an Obama vs. Hillary fight, so both of these candidates need to pull back from the attacks on each other and focus on their own policies and campaigns. We don't want one of them so wounded going into the general that they can't recover, with the supporters of their Democratic opponent so angry at the destruction of their own candidate that they refuse to show up at the polls. This is the reason Ronald Reagan instituted an 11th Commandment (Thou shalt not attack a fellow republican) in his party.
Second, Democrats need to look beyond race and gender in deciding whom to support. It seems there are many women who are supporting Hillary Clinton just because she is a woman. I think that's as big a mistake as not supporting her because she's a woman. If she's the best one for the job, and electable because of her policies and character, great. If she's not the best one for the job and the American people decide to vote for a Republican as a result, then ladies we will not end up with the first woman president but with the first female nominee and that is not good enough - for feminism, for women, but especially for the country. That's simply not a risk any of us should take because nothing, nothing, nothing is more important than electing a Democrat this time around.
Likewise, Barack Obama should not be supported or opposed just because he is black, or not "black enough." While I think it is very important for our country to finally electe a black president, just as I think it is important to finally elect a woman, these aren't more important than dumping the Republicans. The mess we are in because of a criminal Republican administration, an illegal war, a failing economy, and an attempt to make the president a monarch, makes it crucial to restore the Constitution - and sanity - by electing a Democrat.
I ask all Democrats - and especially Hillary, Bill, and Barack, as well as their supporters and advisors, to knock it off and restore some dignity to this campaign so that whoever wins the nomination will have the best possible chance of defeating the insane party that has nearly destroyed the Constitution and the country.
Insanity of the day
The military and Big Pharma are apparently either using or considering the use of a medication that will help prevent Post Traumatic Stress Disorder by playing with the soldier's perception or memory of a wartime event. It's being called "mental kevlar."
Isn't this amazing! Instead of resolving not to go to war unless it is absolutely necessary to protect one's family and country, our leaders go to war whenever they feel like it and then find a medication to limit the negative impact on the fighters who aren't killed.
This isn't really that surprising. We already put children in education programs they are unsuited for and then drug them because they can't sit still, because changing the educational system would not be easy.
We already overwork and stress parents out to the point they can't provide effective parenting to their children and then we call the children depressed or bipolar or hyperactive and drug them, because helping parents with social programs or economic assistance or parenting classes would not be easy.
We already have an economy that suits the aggressive and competitive and unethical so that fewer workers are needed and then when millions are laid off and become depressed we give them antidepressants, because changing the economy and making it more humane would not be easy.
Now that war has become the norm, we must find pills to limit the psychological effects of its horrors on the warriors, when the logical solution would be not to start unnecessary wars in the first place.
But that would not be easy, because it would not be very profitable.
What they have come up with has already been dubbed "the mourning after pill." Propranalol, if taken immediately following a traumatic event, can subdue a victim's stress response and so soften his or her perception of the memory. That does not mean the memory has been erased, but proponents claim that the drug can render it emotionally toothless.
If your daughter were raped, the argument goes, wouldn't you want to spare her a traumatic memory that might well ruin her life? As the mother of a 23-year old daughter, I can certainly understand the appeal of that argument. And a drug that could prevent the terrible effects of traumatic injuries in soldiers? If I were the parent of a soldier suffering from such a life-altering injury, I can imagine being similarly persuaded....
But is it moral to weaken memories of horrendous acts a person has committed? Some would say that there is no difference between offering injured soldiers penicillin to prevent an infection and giving a drug that prevents them from suffering from a posttraumatic stress injury for the rest of their lives. Others, like Leon Kass, former chairman of the President's Council on Bioethics, object to propranolol's use on the grounds that it medicates away one's conscience. "It's the morning-after pill for just about anything that produces regret, remorse, pain or guilt," he says. Barry Romo, a national coordinator for Vietnam Veterans Against the War, is even more blunt. "That's the devil pill," he says. "That's the monster pill, the anti-morality pill. That's the pill that can make men and women do anything and think they can get away with it. Even if it doesn't work, what's scary is that a young soldier could believe it will."
Isn't this amazing! Instead of resolving not to go to war unless it is absolutely necessary to protect one's family and country, our leaders go to war whenever they feel like it and then find a medication to limit the negative impact on the fighters who aren't killed.
This isn't really that surprising. We already put children in education programs they are unsuited for and then drug them because they can't sit still, because changing the educational system would not be easy.
We already overwork and stress parents out to the point they can't provide effective parenting to their children and then we call the children depressed or bipolar or hyperactive and drug them, because helping parents with social programs or economic assistance or parenting classes would not be easy.
We already have an economy that suits the aggressive and competitive and unethical so that fewer workers are needed and then when millions are laid off and become depressed we give them antidepressants, because changing the economy and making it more humane would not be easy.
Now that war has become the norm, we must find pills to limit the psychological effects of its horrors on the warriors, when the logical solution would be not to start unnecessary wars in the first place.
But that would not be easy, because it would not be very profitable.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Oh for pete's sake!
Are we so fearful and gullible, and is this adminstration so determined to make Iran their next target, that we and they are ready to make an international incident out of a prank from someone the Navy has known about for years?
Who is responsible for this flawed reporting?
Who is responsible for this flawed reporting?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)