The latest reverend to slink out of the ooze and perform before an audience is once again tarnishing Barack Obama. Not content to let FOX obsess about it, MSNBC and even PBS's News Hour showed clips last night of a Catholic priest giving a "guest" sermon at Obama's Chicago Church in which, among other things, he ridiculed Hillary Clinton. (Obama wasn't there to hear it, but when he saw the clips he strongly condemned what the priest said.)
And, honestly, what the priest said was completely over the top. I'm not going to repeat any of his rant, which every Catholic should find embarrassing. Certainly Obama found it offensive. Mark Shields, of the News Hour, was so horrified by it that he suggested Obama apologize to Hillary for the ridicule that this priest directed at her. I wouldn't go that far, in that this crazy man's ideas do not reflect anything Obama has ever said or stood for. And Obama had no part in this nonsense, nor was he even there to see it firsthand.
But I do think Obama needs to do two things. He needs to leave the Trinity United Church of Christ and publicly join another church, one that is much more subdued and dignified and thus matches his own demeanor. While all of the members of this congregation may not be radical, its ministers flirt with radical ideas and while this may have been okay when Obama was simply a state senator, it is not okay for him to be associated with anything radical or unseemly now that he is running for the highest office in the land. Furthermore, Obama is nothing like either of these ministers, has never spoken any of these ideas, or acted like either of these men, and he needs to find a church that will befit his dignity and not continue to embarrass and hurt him. He needs to do this without insulting the members of Trinity United, and with gratitude to them for their love and support.
He also needs to make a concerted outreach to women, starting with a speech in which he talks about gender issues and reaches out to Hillary's supporters. Perhaps he even needs to ask Hillary to be his vice presidential running mate (if only he can put Bill in cold storage for eight years) to heal the growing rift between his supporters and Hillary's supporters. Because this rift must be healed.
What started out as a primary season to be proud of – with a female candidate, African American candidate and Hispanic candidate within a larger democratic field – has turned into a nightmare of racist and sexist accusations. The fellowship once felt between women and African Americans in their parallel fights for equality, has been turned into a competition as the two populations line up behind different candidates. There were shades of this in the seventies, of course, when African American women felt the women's movement was primarily about white women and ignored the problems blackwomen encountered because of their race, but no one could have predicted that these two candidates would inspire such division among Democrats who have always been champions of both women's rights and minority rights.
This primary contest needs to be resolved now. The leaders of the Party need to exert their influence and Hillary and Barack need to sit down and end this growing animosity. They need to speak to their followers about unity and common cause, and turn the anger of their supporters in the right direction – against the horrible record of this administration and the man who wants to continue those policies for four more years. They need to speak against sexism and racism, apologize publicly for anything they or their surrogates or crazy ministers have said or done to fuel the fire, and start working together for the good of this country.
One of these days I'm going to write a long post about the dangers of religious and clerical involvement in our political campaigns and our government, one that is long overdue, but that post can wait. For now, we need to unite this party and Hillary and Barack must lead that effort. We can't afford to continue this fight any longer. We must have a nominee now and begin to heal so that we can all be on board to return the White House to Democratic hands. Because there is one thing for certain. Anyone who cares about civil rights and the rights of women, anyone who cares about stopping this war, anyone who cares about the health of our citizens and their access to health insurance, will be sorely disappointed by a John McCain presidency.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Friday, May 30, 2008
The rational solution to Florida and Michigan: a prediction
I'm going to do something very dangerous. I'm going to predict that the rules committe that meets tomorrow will be rational. That is a dangerous prediction in that it has been my experience that human beings, especially when it comes to politics, are rarely rational.
Nevertheless, let's look at the problem, the arguments, the counterarguments, and the only rational solution the committee can come to. This doesn't mean they will choose the rational solution, but I predict they will come close.
The problem: Florida and Michigan were warned not to schedule their primaries prior to the four official early contests: Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. They were told their delegates would not count if they did it anyway. They did it anyway. Currently, their delegates do not count and the number of delegates needed to win is thus much lower than it would have been had their votes counted.
All the candidates signed a pledge not to campaign in these two states and both Hillary and Barack stated publicly that they accepted the fact that the votes in these states would not count. Barack and several others even took their names off the ballot in Michigan. Hillary did not. Hillary won in Michigan, against "uncommitted." In Florida all the names were on the ballot and Hillary also won.
The Hillary arguments: Since it became apparent that Hillary could not possibly win the nomination without the delegates in Michigan and Florida, she has been arguing that the DNC should not enforce the rules she agreed to, rules that were written with the assistance of her supporters. Furthermore, she argues that the votes should be assigned as they were cast, which means that Barack Obama would get no delegates from Michigan and no penalty would be assigned to these states for violating the rules.
Part of her argument is that the Democratic Party should never have instituted these rules because they have disenfranchised the voters of these states. She further argues that the voters of these two states will be mad at the Democrats if their delegates don't count, and may vote for McCain in the Fall as a result.
The counterargument: Those who oppose Hillary's argument, including Obama, say that everyone agreed to play by these rules and that has affected strategy. If Obama knew Florida and Michigan counted, he would have campaigned differently, spending time there to introduce himself to voters in order to have an equal chance against the more well known Clinton.
Furthermore, he argues, he wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan, and write-in votes for him were automatically thrown out. He also points to the fact that many voters, including his supporters, did not even vote as they knew the election wouldn't count. To now count the votes of these states would be to disenfranchise those who stayed home, accepting the rules, and would penalize all those states that scheduled their primaries later in order to abide by the rules.
Others in the Party argue that to threaten to penalize these states, but then not penalize them at all, would be to open the process up to chaos in coming years as more and more states moved their primaries up to ridiculously early dates, making the primary season longer and more expensive than ever. Unless these states are penalized, they argue, the DNC will lose all control of the primary process.
The rational solution: First, the states must experience a consequence for violating the rules. Since traditionally that violation has been to strip a state of half of its delegates, that seems a sensible solution this year. The delegates will still be seated, giving their state a part in the nomination process, but not as much power as they would have had if they had adhered to the rules. Even Clinton campaign manager Terry McCauliffe promised to strip Michigan of half of their delegates in 2004 when they threatened to move their primary up, so if this solution wasn't understood by the Clinton campaign, Terry could explain it to them.
Second, because the states were in violation of the rules, and the candidates acted with a good faith belief that the votes would not count, and planned their campaign strategies accordingly, these states cannot be allowed to decide the election and overturn the will of the other 48 states.
Again, with Obama ahead by almost 200 delegates, a seating of half of the delegates from the states will not overturn the current status of the race and thus seems sensible.
Third, some accomodation must be made for the fact that only Clinton's name was on the ballot in Michigan. She can't be allowed to benefit from this unusual circumstance as it is obvious that were Obama's name on the ballot, he would have received a considerable number of votes. The rules committee can give him all of the "uncommitted" or some portion of the uncommitted that is acceptable to the committee and to Obama. (One unique solution I recently heard was to take a series of polls in Michigan - and perhaps even Florida - and assign delegates according to the results of the polling data. That seems reasonable as well.)
So that, to me, is reasonable. It achieves the goals of punishing the states so as to prevent future chaos, seating the delegations so as not to totally disenfranchise the voters who weren't responsible for the policy, and arriving at a reasonable vote assignment in Michigan where the frontrunner was not even on the ballot.
This is what I predict the committee will do - regardless of how emotional Hillary's supporters get, and how forcefully her surrogates argue her position. Her position is irrational , unjust, and completely self-serving, and if the committee members are at all rational, they will not give her everything she wants, but will try to find a reasonable and sensible compromise.
Nevertheless, let's look at the problem, the arguments, the counterarguments, and the only rational solution the committee can come to. This doesn't mean they will choose the rational solution, but I predict they will come close.
The problem: Florida and Michigan were warned not to schedule their primaries prior to the four official early contests: Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. They were told their delegates would not count if they did it anyway. They did it anyway. Currently, their delegates do not count and the number of delegates needed to win is thus much lower than it would have been had their votes counted.
All the candidates signed a pledge not to campaign in these two states and both Hillary and Barack stated publicly that they accepted the fact that the votes in these states would not count. Barack and several others even took their names off the ballot in Michigan. Hillary did not. Hillary won in Michigan, against "uncommitted." In Florida all the names were on the ballot and Hillary also won.
The Hillary arguments: Since it became apparent that Hillary could not possibly win the nomination without the delegates in Michigan and Florida, she has been arguing that the DNC should not enforce the rules she agreed to, rules that were written with the assistance of her supporters. Furthermore, she argues that the votes should be assigned as they were cast, which means that Barack Obama would get no delegates from Michigan and no penalty would be assigned to these states for violating the rules.
Part of her argument is that the Democratic Party should never have instituted these rules because they have disenfranchised the voters of these states. She further argues that the voters of these two states will be mad at the Democrats if their delegates don't count, and may vote for McCain in the Fall as a result.
The counterargument: Those who oppose Hillary's argument, including Obama, say that everyone agreed to play by these rules and that has affected strategy. If Obama knew Florida and Michigan counted, he would have campaigned differently, spending time there to introduce himself to voters in order to have an equal chance against the more well known Clinton.
Furthermore, he argues, he wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan, and write-in votes for him were automatically thrown out. He also points to the fact that many voters, including his supporters, did not even vote as they knew the election wouldn't count. To now count the votes of these states would be to disenfranchise those who stayed home, accepting the rules, and would penalize all those states that scheduled their primaries later in order to abide by the rules.
Others in the Party argue that to threaten to penalize these states, but then not penalize them at all, would be to open the process up to chaos in coming years as more and more states moved their primaries up to ridiculously early dates, making the primary season longer and more expensive than ever. Unless these states are penalized, they argue, the DNC will lose all control of the primary process.
The rational solution: First, the states must experience a consequence for violating the rules. Since traditionally that violation has been to strip a state of half of its delegates, that seems a sensible solution this year. The delegates will still be seated, giving their state a part in the nomination process, but not as much power as they would have had if they had adhered to the rules. Even Clinton campaign manager Terry McCauliffe promised to strip Michigan of half of their delegates in 2004 when they threatened to move their primary up, so if this solution wasn't understood by the Clinton campaign, Terry could explain it to them.
Second, because the states were in violation of the rules, and the candidates acted with a good faith belief that the votes would not count, and planned their campaign strategies accordingly, these states cannot be allowed to decide the election and overturn the will of the other 48 states.
Again, with Obama ahead by almost 200 delegates, a seating of half of the delegates from the states will not overturn the current status of the race and thus seems sensible.
Third, some accomodation must be made for the fact that only Clinton's name was on the ballot in Michigan. She can't be allowed to benefit from this unusual circumstance as it is obvious that were Obama's name on the ballot, he would have received a considerable number of votes. The rules committee can give him all of the "uncommitted" or some portion of the uncommitted that is acceptable to the committee and to Obama. (One unique solution I recently heard was to take a series of polls in Michigan - and perhaps even Florida - and assign delegates according to the results of the polling data. That seems reasonable as well.)
So that, to me, is reasonable. It achieves the goals of punishing the states so as to prevent future chaos, seating the delegations so as not to totally disenfranchise the voters who weren't responsible for the policy, and arriving at a reasonable vote assignment in Michigan where the frontrunner was not even on the ballot.
This is what I predict the committee will do - regardless of how emotional Hillary's supporters get, and how forcefully her surrogates argue her position. Her position is irrational , unjust, and completely self-serving, and if the committee members are at all rational, they will not give her everything she wants, but will try to find a reasonable and sensible compromise.
News of the week, with commentary
This week's headlines:
We start out with remnants of the stories of John McCain's "pastor problem," then move on to McCain and Obama arguing about Iraq. But no one is really tuned into Iraq, so the weather gods did the news a favor and brought a number of deadly tornadoes to the Midwest…
MY COMMENT: Why does anyone give any attention to crazy pastors? I'm sure there are plenty of hard working and sincere ministers out there trying to help people with their physical, economic, moral and spiritual problems, so why do we give press to those few nutjobs who get involved in politics or foreign affairs or controversial topics. Let's just end the tax break for religions, and shove religion back in the churches. If the media would not cover these insane showmen, we could focus on more important things, like health care and the cost of gasoline.
More tornadoes this year than ever before. Climate change anyone?
…The coverage of tornadoes got boring after a day or two, so it was fortunate that former lightweight press secretary under Bush, Scott McClellan, went on a book tour for his book about "What Happened" while he was in the White House, and he didn't have many good things to say. As White House spokespersons all expressed how "puzzled" they were by Scott's book, and various media outlets either praised him for his honesty or criticized him for his disloyalty, or accused Scott of using liberal bloggers to write the book (no, I'm not kidding), the Republicans obviously needed a distraction…
MY COMMENT: Scott McClellan is an idiot. He was an idiot as press secretary when he looked like his head contained only pre-recorded talking points, and he is an idiot now who wants to sell a book. I have absolutely no sympathy for the morons who supported these criminal monsters: the president and vice president. It is too late to be sorry. You can't bring back those dead Americans in Iraq and New Orleans, and you can't bring back those dead Iraqis. Scotty and the rest of the people surrounding George Bush are either the stupidest people on the planet or the most criminal. No one should buy this man's book. He is six years too late.
…The distraction from McClellan turned out to be a tape of a radical Catholic priest giving a guest sermon at Trinity United Church of Christ, Obama's (former?) church. Obama wasn't there, of course, and while this priest allegedly spent a short time on a panel of ministers doing outreach to churches or advising for the campaign, it has been decided by the media that he is Obama's new "pastor problem"….
MY COMMENT: Read the first comment above.
….This morning, the deadly collapse of a second crane in New York City pushed the crazy pastor story out of the headlines (because stories about New York are always more important than anything else). Tomorrow, the DNC rules committee meeting will push the crane, pastor, tornado, and McClellan stories out of the headlines…
MY COMMENT: The news will cover the women protesting at the DNC event, women who think Hillary Clinton must be crowned queen of America because she is the symbol of female equality and who are demanding that the DNC seat all of the delegates from Michigan and Florida. I don't think they should seat any of them, because not only did they break the clear rules set out by the DNC, but all the candidates agreed to abide by those rules. Now the losing candidate wants to change the rules so she can win. This is an example of what some call "situational ethics." If it feels good, do it. If you can't win by following the rules, change the rules. Democrats have been accused time and again of operating according to situational ethics and of not having a backbone. The DNC needs to show the country and the renegade states that they can enforce rules and that they have a backbone. They need to stick to their rules, make a sane decision, and tell Hillary' it is time for her to accept reality. In time, Michigan and Florida will get over it and decide that that voting for McCain will just give them four more years of Bush.
…..Then we have the final primary elections - in Puerto Rico, South Dakota, and Montana - and the drama Hillary will provide when she decides whether or not she is going to continue to hold the party hostage…
MY COMMENT: Puerto Rico is irrelevant. They cannot vote in the general, so while they have been given some power to help choose the nominee, the popular vote there should not be included in Hillary's bogus popular vote count. Besides, why is anyone in the press falling for this popular vote argument? The party chooses the nominee on the basis of delegates won, not popular votes. Since many of the caucus states don't record the actual popular vote, there is really no way of knowing who won the most popular votes, regardless of the fairy tale Hillary is spinning.
Why is anyone letting Hillary determine the metrics for winning? And furthermore, didn't the Clintons cause the Democratic Party enough trouble in the late nineties, including making it impossible for Al Gore to win in the 2000 election? Why on earth would anyone give them a second opportunity to lose an election for the Democrats by trying to change the rules and using prolonged negative campaigning against the nominee?
Can't wait for next week's headlines!
We start out with remnants of the stories of John McCain's "pastor problem," then move on to McCain and Obama arguing about Iraq. But no one is really tuned into Iraq, so the weather gods did the news a favor and brought a number of deadly tornadoes to the Midwest…
MY COMMENT: Why does anyone give any attention to crazy pastors? I'm sure there are plenty of hard working and sincere ministers out there trying to help people with their physical, economic, moral and spiritual problems, so why do we give press to those few nutjobs who get involved in politics or foreign affairs or controversial topics. Let's just end the tax break for religions, and shove religion back in the churches. If the media would not cover these insane showmen, we could focus on more important things, like health care and the cost of gasoline.
More tornadoes this year than ever before. Climate change anyone?
…The coverage of tornadoes got boring after a day or two, so it was fortunate that former lightweight press secretary under Bush, Scott McClellan, went on a book tour for his book about "What Happened" while he was in the White House, and he didn't have many good things to say. As White House spokespersons all expressed how "puzzled" they were by Scott's book, and various media outlets either praised him for his honesty or criticized him for his disloyalty, or accused Scott of using liberal bloggers to write the book (no, I'm not kidding), the Republicans obviously needed a distraction…
MY COMMENT: Scott McClellan is an idiot. He was an idiot as press secretary when he looked like his head contained only pre-recorded talking points, and he is an idiot now who wants to sell a book. I have absolutely no sympathy for the morons who supported these criminal monsters: the president and vice president. It is too late to be sorry. You can't bring back those dead Americans in Iraq and New Orleans, and you can't bring back those dead Iraqis. Scotty and the rest of the people surrounding George Bush are either the stupidest people on the planet or the most criminal. No one should buy this man's book. He is six years too late.
…The distraction from McClellan turned out to be a tape of a radical Catholic priest giving a guest sermon at Trinity United Church of Christ, Obama's (former?) church. Obama wasn't there, of course, and while this priest allegedly spent a short time on a panel of ministers doing outreach to churches or advising for the campaign, it has been decided by the media that he is Obama's new "pastor problem"….
MY COMMENT: Read the first comment above.
….This morning, the deadly collapse of a second crane in New York City pushed the crazy pastor story out of the headlines (because stories about New York are always more important than anything else). Tomorrow, the DNC rules committee meeting will push the crane, pastor, tornado, and McClellan stories out of the headlines…
MY COMMENT: The news will cover the women protesting at the DNC event, women who think Hillary Clinton must be crowned queen of America because she is the symbol of female equality and who are demanding that the DNC seat all of the delegates from Michigan and Florida. I don't think they should seat any of them, because not only did they break the clear rules set out by the DNC, but all the candidates agreed to abide by those rules. Now the losing candidate wants to change the rules so she can win. This is an example of what some call "situational ethics." If it feels good, do it. If you can't win by following the rules, change the rules. Democrats have been accused time and again of operating according to situational ethics and of not having a backbone. The DNC needs to show the country and the renegade states that they can enforce rules and that they have a backbone. They need to stick to their rules, make a sane decision, and tell Hillary' it is time for her to accept reality. In time, Michigan and Florida will get over it and decide that that voting for McCain will just give them four more years of Bush.
…..Then we have the final primary elections - in Puerto Rico, South Dakota, and Montana - and the drama Hillary will provide when she decides whether or not she is going to continue to hold the party hostage…
MY COMMENT: Puerto Rico is irrelevant. They cannot vote in the general, so while they have been given some power to help choose the nominee, the popular vote there should not be included in Hillary's bogus popular vote count. Besides, why is anyone in the press falling for this popular vote argument? The party chooses the nominee on the basis of delegates won, not popular votes. Since many of the caucus states don't record the actual popular vote, there is really no way of knowing who won the most popular votes, regardless of the fairy tale Hillary is spinning.
Why is anyone letting Hillary determine the metrics for winning? And furthermore, didn't the Clintons cause the Democratic Party enough trouble in the late nineties, including making it impossible for Al Gore to win in the 2000 election? Why on earth would anyone give them a second opportunity to lose an election for the Democrats by trying to change the rules and using prolonged negative campaigning against the nominee?
Can't wait for next week's headlines!
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Free press no more
Why is it only now coming out that the media was in the tank for the Bush administration throughout most of his presidency?
Delusionists
This is a big week for politicos living with and promoting delusions.
Lanny Davis and the Clintonistas continue to insist Hillary will win the nomination with help from Florida and Michigan (whose delegations they believe will be seated with full voting power), the lead in the popular vote, and help from the superdelegates who will flock to Hill because Gallup says she will do better than Obama in the general election.
The Bush White House, with an assist from retired press secretaries, insists they are "puzzled" and "shocked" by Scott McClellan's book in which he reveals what thinking people already knew: the Bush White House lied to the people. These robotic spokespersons continue to insist that Bush did not lie or mislead the people, because he was given flawed intellligence, which he believed.
The RNC is saying Barack Obama is not qualified to be commander in chief because he spoke of his "uncle" being part of the army team that liberated Auschwitz, when it was actually his great uncle liberating Buchenwald, which the RNC says was not a "concentration camp" but a "labor camp."
It isn't that hard to expose and refute these delusions:
Hillary is not going to win the nomination. At this moment, with three contests left, including Puerto Rico which cannot vote in the general election, she is behind in elected delegates, with no possibility of catching up, behind in superdelegates, many of whom are secretly pledged to Obama and will declare after Tuesday, and behind in the popular vote. The only possible way Hillary can overtake Obama in the popular vote is with Hill-math (you have no idea how tempting it is to call it "Hill-Billy-math"). Hill-math counts all the votes for Hillary in Michigan and gives none to Obama because his name was not on the ballot. Hill-math does not count the popular vote in four caucus states, three of which Obama won. Hill-math counts the popular vote in Puerto Rico, which cannot vote in November.
As for the Gallup poll giving the advantage to Hillary in the blue states and the head to head matchup with McCain, every day there are polls that show Obama leading McCain, Obama leading in those same blue states, and Obama leading in many red or purple states that would give him the victory over McCain even if he lost some of those blue states. Lanny Davis wants us to believe that one poll (Gallup) taken today are perfect predictors of who would win in November, but polls vary, and polls from previous years have been notoriously wrong this early in the season. Barack Obama has consistently shown that when he campaigns vigorously in a state over an extended time period, he wins.
As for the White House's "puzzlement" over Scott McClellan ratting them out, the only way they could be puzzled is if they truly believed in all the propaganda this W.H. has spewed out over eight years. Some probably do, and they are delusional, just as McClellan apparently was while press secretary, but others know better and are just reciting the talking points. Scott McClellan isn't telling well informed Americans anything new, except that it is possible for one Bushie to be cured of his delusion and write about it. Furthermore, if the White House still thinks the American people believe the Iraq War was all about weapons of mass destruction, and the president can be forgiven for waging this "preventative" war because he was given false intelligence, then the White House remains in the grip of the biggest delusion of all time. The American people have turned against this war not just because it is too costly, which it is, but also because they know the president went to war for reasons other than weapons of mass destruction, delusional reasons having to do with remaking the map of the Middle East, securing access to oil, and ushering in the neoconservative dream of the "New American Century."
In light of all the "misstatements" and falsehoods perpetrated by the White House and exposed in McClellan's book, and keeping in mind all the confusion John McCain shows as he runs around the country talking about Shia when he means Sunni, and al Qaeda when he means Iran (and vice versa), it is amusing to see the RNC jumping on Obama's words. First of all, many people call a great uncle simply "uncle" so there's no big deal there, and Obama saying Auschwitz rather than Buchenwald does not seem that big a deal either. Both were death camps, in spite of the RNC trying to downplay the horrors of Buchenwald by calling it "only a work camp." Both imprisoned Jews during World War II. That Obama was a little confused about history seems not nearly as disastrous a mistake as McCain being confused about the present.
Gosh it will be wonderful to be rid of the delusionists!
Lanny Davis and the Clintonistas continue to insist Hillary will win the nomination with help from Florida and Michigan (whose delegations they believe will be seated with full voting power), the lead in the popular vote, and help from the superdelegates who will flock to Hill because Gallup says she will do better than Obama in the general election.
The Bush White House, with an assist from retired press secretaries, insists they are "puzzled" and "shocked" by Scott McClellan's book in which he reveals what thinking people already knew: the Bush White House lied to the people. These robotic spokespersons continue to insist that Bush did not lie or mislead the people, because he was given flawed intellligence, which he believed.
The RNC is saying Barack Obama is not qualified to be commander in chief because he spoke of his "uncle" being part of the army team that liberated Auschwitz, when it was actually his great uncle liberating Buchenwald, which the RNC says was not a "concentration camp" but a "labor camp."
It isn't that hard to expose and refute these delusions:
Hillary is not going to win the nomination. At this moment, with three contests left, including Puerto Rico which cannot vote in the general election, she is behind in elected delegates, with no possibility of catching up, behind in superdelegates, many of whom are secretly pledged to Obama and will declare after Tuesday, and behind in the popular vote. The only possible way Hillary can overtake Obama in the popular vote is with Hill-math (you have no idea how tempting it is to call it "Hill-Billy-math"). Hill-math counts all the votes for Hillary in Michigan and gives none to Obama because his name was not on the ballot. Hill-math does not count the popular vote in four caucus states, three of which Obama won. Hill-math counts the popular vote in Puerto Rico, which cannot vote in November.
As for the Gallup poll giving the advantage to Hillary in the blue states and the head to head matchup with McCain, every day there are polls that show Obama leading McCain, Obama leading in those same blue states, and Obama leading in many red or purple states that would give him the victory over McCain even if he lost some of those blue states. Lanny Davis wants us to believe that one poll (Gallup) taken today are perfect predictors of who would win in November, but polls vary, and polls from previous years have been notoriously wrong this early in the season. Barack Obama has consistently shown that when he campaigns vigorously in a state over an extended time period, he wins.
As for the White House's "puzzlement" over Scott McClellan ratting them out, the only way they could be puzzled is if they truly believed in all the propaganda this W.H. has spewed out over eight years. Some probably do, and they are delusional, just as McClellan apparently was while press secretary, but others know better and are just reciting the talking points. Scott McClellan isn't telling well informed Americans anything new, except that it is possible for one Bushie to be cured of his delusion and write about it. Furthermore, if the White House still thinks the American people believe the Iraq War was all about weapons of mass destruction, and the president can be forgiven for waging this "preventative" war because he was given false intelligence, then the White House remains in the grip of the biggest delusion of all time. The American people have turned against this war not just because it is too costly, which it is, but also because they know the president went to war for reasons other than weapons of mass destruction, delusional reasons having to do with remaking the map of the Middle East, securing access to oil, and ushering in the neoconservative dream of the "New American Century."
In light of all the "misstatements" and falsehoods perpetrated by the White House and exposed in McClellan's book, and keeping in mind all the confusion John McCain shows as he runs around the country talking about Shia when he means Sunni, and al Qaeda when he means Iran (and vice versa), it is amusing to see the RNC jumping on Obama's words. First of all, many people call a great uncle simply "uncle" so there's no big deal there, and Obama saying Auschwitz rather than Buchenwald does not seem that big a deal either. Both were death camps, in spite of the RNC trying to downplay the horrors of Buchenwald by calling it "only a work camp." Both imprisoned Jews during World War II. That Obama was a little confused about history seems not nearly as disastrous a mistake as McCain being confused about the present.
Gosh it will be wonderful to be rid of the delusionists!
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Retiring the old, introducing the new
It isn't just Bill and Hillary Clinton who I hope to never see again once she is finally dragged kicking and screaming out of the August convention, having finally been denied the nomination because - surprise of surprises - her opponent actually won.
Hopefully, once Obama is the nominee this cast of Clinton spokespersons will disappear, and after Obama's victory in November, never be heard from again:
James Carville
Paul Begala
Lanny Davis
Gloria Steinem
Howard Wolfson
Ann Lewis
Mark Penn
Stephanie Tubbs Jones
Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Also, it will be so refreshing to become acquainted with an entirely new group of advisors, cabinet ministers, and White House staffers once Obama is inaugurated. The Clinton crowd has become as tiresome as the Bush crowd, though they are not nearly as destructive, and it will be good to see them retired.
Hopefully, once Obama is the nominee this cast of Clinton spokespersons will disappear, and after Obama's victory in November, never be heard from again:
James Carville
Paul Begala
Lanny Davis
Gloria Steinem
Howard Wolfson
Ann Lewis
Mark Penn
Stephanie Tubbs Jones
Debbie Wasserman Schultz
Also, it will be so refreshing to become acquainted with an entirely new group of advisors, cabinet ministers, and White House staffers once Obama is inaugurated. The Clinton crowd has become as tiresome as the Bush crowd, though they are not nearly as destructive, and it will be good to see them retired.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
The evolution of an Obama suporter
The evolution of an Obama supporter.
First of two essays on why I have decided to support Barack Obama instead of Hillary Clinton.
And it's not because I have drunk the "Kool-Aid" or am betraying my gender.
First of two essays on why I have decided to support Barack Obama instead of Hillary Clinton.
And it's not because I have drunk the "Kool-Aid" or am betraying my gender.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Electoral psychodrama
We can all overthink, overanalyze, and over-react to any one thing a candidate does or says on the campaign trail. But sometimes there is a pattern, a group of statements and behaviors that hint at what is really going on inside the psyche of a candidate.
I think Hillary has given away what is going on inside her psyche, and John McCain is following her lead.
Both candidates are really pissed that this way-too-young Senator is challenging them for the presidency when he has not, in their opinion, paid his dues. Add to this the fact that both Clinton and McCain have been waiting years for their chance to run. We all know what happened to McCain when he ran against another young upstart, George W. Bush, eight years ago. McCain was treated horribly by that campaign, and in order to be in the best possible position to run this year, he has had to grovel before Bush, campaign for him, and support him in spite of how he must have felt to be the victim of Rovian smears. So in 2008, McCain has paid more than his share of dues and finds himself competing against another young upstart, someone who has only been in the Senate a few years. This must seem completely unfair and wrong to him.
Clinton, on the other hand, watched as her husband, the President, was attacked and ultimately impeached. She was publicly humilated, both by her husband and his rivals who exposed all of his sexual misbehavior in graphic detail. So to get back her dignity, she first ran for the Senate in 2000, hoping to build up years of governing bona fides to qualify her to run for president. Then, just as everyone is declaring her the inevitable nominee, this charismatic kid, who has never had to endure what she has, who doesn't have her experience, but who has loads of charm and likability, comes forward and says "I think I want this job."
This week both Clinton and McCain made their feelings about Obama obvious. Clinton's statement about staying in the race, using the example of RFK winning in June in California and then being assassinated was her big give away. Why pick that example out of the many other nomination fights decided late? Probably because Obama and RFK have a lot in common. RFK was also young(43) and charismatic, and Obama has often been compared to RFK as well as his brother JFK. Kennedy had only been a Senator for four years, the same amount of time Obama has been in the Senate, and was seen as a challenger to the Democratic establishment in 1968, which ultimately backed establishment candidate Hubert Humphrey.
Clinton also saw herself as the establishment, the inevitable candidate, until she found herself challenged by the young Obama. What comes across in all of Clinton's encounters with Obama, and in her demeaning statements about him, is her belief that he does not deserve this nomination, that he has stepped on her toes and her chance at the presidency, and that he is not deserving of respect. That is why she made that snarky comment about she and McCain having a lifetime of experience and Barack having only a speech. That is why she seemed to discount the legacies of both Martin Luther King, Jr. and John F. Kennedy, both young leaders, both assassinated, when she talked about how much more important Lyndon Johnson was to getting civil rights legislation enacted.
It is clear Hillary identifies with party insiders like Humphrey and Johnson, and looks with puzzlement on young charismatic figures like King, the Kennedys, and now Obama. She sees their appeal but does not understand it and cannot compete with it. And her language of feint praise, or in Obama's case disrespect, gives her away.
McCain has a similar reaction to Obama. Obama obviously gets under his skin (in much the same way he gets under Bill Clinton's skin) when he says anything to challenge McCain. On the Senate floor this week, with McCain absent, Obama expressed praise for McCain's personal story, but disagreement with his decision not to support the veteran's bill. McCain shot back immediately with praise for fellow veteran Jim Webb, who sponsored the legislation he opposed, and over the top disdain for Obama:
Whoa! He attacks Obama for not serving in the military, for not, so to speak, paying his dues. He shows his contempt for Obama in this and in other campaign stops, where he calls Obama "inexperienced" and "young man." His tone is dismissive and, like Clinton, his words tell the whole story. McCain believes he has earned the presidency, and no matter how popular or charismatic or intelligent or capable Obama is, he hasn't earned the right to challenge the Vietnam POW.
This year we are observing an interesting psychodrama. Two older establishement candidates struggle to compete against a younger candidate with his amazing gifts of charisma, speaking ability, high intelligence, creativity, and organization. Three other young leaders with those same gifts were all gunned down in the sixties and we haven't really had another emerge since then - until Obama. Interestingly, Obama is, as the first African American nominee, a combination of the Kennedys and King. His supporters all pray that he will not meet the same end, that he will be safe, and with a little luck and a lot of hard work make it to January 20th, 2009, when he will put his hand on the Bible and take the oath of office of the President of the United States of America.
And just as an aside, this explains why so many of us were so horrified by Clinton's remarks about RFK's assassination.
I think Hillary has given away what is going on inside her psyche, and John McCain is following her lead.
Both candidates are really pissed that this way-too-young Senator is challenging them for the presidency when he has not, in their opinion, paid his dues. Add to this the fact that both Clinton and McCain have been waiting years for their chance to run. We all know what happened to McCain when he ran against another young upstart, George W. Bush, eight years ago. McCain was treated horribly by that campaign, and in order to be in the best possible position to run this year, he has had to grovel before Bush, campaign for him, and support him in spite of how he must have felt to be the victim of Rovian smears. So in 2008, McCain has paid more than his share of dues and finds himself competing against another young upstart, someone who has only been in the Senate a few years. This must seem completely unfair and wrong to him.
Clinton, on the other hand, watched as her husband, the President, was attacked and ultimately impeached. She was publicly humilated, both by her husband and his rivals who exposed all of his sexual misbehavior in graphic detail. So to get back her dignity, she first ran for the Senate in 2000, hoping to build up years of governing bona fides to qualify her to run for president. Then, just as everyone is declaring her the inevitable nominee, this charismatic kid, who has never had to endure what she has, who doesn't have her experience, but who has loads of charm and likability, comes forward and says "I think I want this job."
This week both Clinton and McCain made their feelings about Obama obvious. Clinton's statement about staying in the race, using the example of RFK winning in June in California and then being assassinated was her big give away. Why pick that example out of the many other nomination fights decided late? Probably because Obama and RFK have a lot in common. RFK was also young(43) and charismatic, and Obama has often been compared to RFK as well as his brother JFK. Kennedy had only been a Senator for four years, the same amount of time Obama has been in the Senate, and was seen as a challenger to the Democratic establishment in 1968, which ultimately backed establishment candidate Hubert Humphrey.
Clinton also saw herself as the establishment, the inevitable candidate, until she found herself challenged by the young Obama. What comes across in all of Clinton's encounters with Obama, and in her demeaning statements about him, is her belief that he does not deserve this nomination, that he has stepped on her toes and her chance at the presidency, and that he is not deserving of respect. That is why she made that snarky comment about she and McCain having a lifetime of experience and Barack having only a speech. That is why she seemed to discount the legacies of both Martin Luther King, Jr. and John F. Kennedy, both young leaders, both assassinated, when she talked about how much more important Lyndon Johnson was to getting civil rights legislation enacted.
It is clear Hillary identifies with party insiders like Humphrey and Johnson, and looks with puzzlement on young charismatic figures like King, the Kennedys, and now Obama. She sees their appeal but does not understand it and cannot compete with it. And her language of feint praise, or in Obama's case disrespect, gives her away.
McCain has a similar reaction to Obama. Obama obviously gets under his skin (in much the same way he gets under Bill Clinton's skin) when he says anything to challenge McCain. On the Senate floor this week, with McCain absent, Obama expressed praise for McCain's personal story, but disagreement with his decision not to support the veteran's bill. McCain shot back immediately with praise for fellow veteran Jim Webb, who sponsored the legislation he opposed, and over the top disdain for Obama:
I take a backseat to no one in my affection, respect and devotion to veterans. And I will not accept from Senator Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lectures on my regard for those who did.
Whoa! He attacks Obama for not serving in the military, for not, so to speak, paying his dues. He shows his contempt for Obama in this and in other campaign stops, where he calls Obama "inexperienced" and "young man." His tone is dismissive and, like Clinton, his words tell the whole story. McCain believes he has earned the presidency, and no matter how popular or charismatic or intelligent or capable Obama is, he hasn't earned the right to challenge the Vietnam POW.
This year we are observing an interesting psychodrama. Two older establishement candidates struggle to compete against a younger candidate with his amazing gifts of charisma, speaking ability, high intelligence, creativity, and organization. Three other young leaders with those same gifts were all gunned down in the sixties and we haven't really had another emerge since then - until Obama. Interestingly, Obama is, as the first African American nominee, a combination of the Kennedys and King. His supporters all pray that he will not meet the same end, that he will be safe, and with a little luck and a lot of hard work make it to January 20th, 2009, when he will put his hand on the Bible and take the oath of office of the President of the United States of America.
And just as an aside, this explains why so many of us were so horrified by Clinton's remarks about RFK's assassination.
Friday, May 23, 2008
On the other hand...
My first reaction to Senator Clinton's reference today to the RFK assassination, as evidence that anything can happen in a campaign and that is why she is staying in the race, was that she didn't really mean it the way it came out. In my last post, I compared her RFK statement to the Obama "bitter" statement. Neither, I thought, was as heinous as the media made or would make them out to be.
Then I watched a few hours of MSNBC and heard of at least four other times when she referenced the assassination of RFK and one time when she referenced the assassination of JFK in order to make political points. So her statement today was not the simple gaffe it seemed at first. It is how she thinks. The assassination of RFK has been on her mind, and it certainly hasn't gone past her how many times people compare Obama to RFK.
I can't, I won't believe Clinton consciously wants her rival gunned down so she can be the nominee, but I have to wonder why it is so much on her mind. In the wee hours of the morning, when she lays in bed unable to sleep, and ponders the fact that she is losing her chance to be president, is she thinking this might be the way she is propelled to the White House?
To be honest, this dreadful possibility has been on my mind and, I assume, on the minds of many Obama supporters. When the thought comes into my mind that the candidate I support might be in danger from some nutjob, some hateful racist scumbag, I am filled with fear and horror as well as shame that this dreadful act has occurred so often in our short history.
But why is it on Hillary's mind? And what else is on her mind? Or has her increasingly insane attempt to win (steal?) the nomination caused her to lose her mind?
Leaving aside the outrage of referencing an assassination for political gain, it should be obvious to everyone now that Clinton has stayed in the race too long. She missed her chance to make a graceful exit, and like a guest who stays past the bedtime of the hosts, and turns a once enjoyable evening into a nightmare where things that shouldn't be said are said because everyone is tired, Hillary is losing her dignity.
She really should concede tomorrow.
Then I watched a few hours of MSNBC and heard of at least four other times when she referenced the assassination of RFK and one time when she referenced the assassination of JFK in order to make political points. So her statement today was not the simple gaffe it seemed at first. It is how she thinks. The assassination of RFK has been on her mind, and it certainly hasn't gone past her how many times people compare Obama to RFK.
I can't, I won't believe Clinton consciously wants her rival gunned down so she can be the nominee, but I have to wonder why it is so much on her mind. In the wee hours of the morning, when she lays in bed unable to sleep, and ponders the fact that she is losing her chance to be president, is she thinking this might be the way she is propelled to the White House?
To be honest, this dreadful possibility has been on my mind and, I assume, on the minds of many Obama supporters. When the thought comes into my mind that the candidate I support might be in danger from some nutjob, some hateful racist scumbag, I am filled with fear and horror as well as shame that this dreadful act has occurred so often in our short history.
But why is it on Hillary's mind? And what else is on her mind? Or has her increasingly insane attempt to win (steal?) the nomination caused her to lose her mind?
Leaving aside the outrage of referencing an assassination for political gain, it should be obvious to everyone now that Clinton has stayed in the race too long. She missed her chance to make a graceful exit, and like a guest who stays past the bedtime of the hosts, and turns a once enjoyable evening into a nightmare where things that shouldn't be said are said because everyone is tired, Hillary is losing her dignity.
She really should concede tomorrow.
Playing in the mud
Here's what Hillary said in a newspaper interview today, defending her staying in the race:
A lot of people are getting all worked up about this and I wish I could. It would be wonderful for us Obama supporters if Hillary said something so awful that she would finally be forced to go away.
But I am simply not that appalled by what she said. Yes, it was awkward, and yes you can read all kinds of things into it, but all I think she meant was that a lot of contests go on to June and beyond and nobody should get all worked up about it.
It was definitely not cool to use the reference to Bobby Kennedy's assassination, especially when a lot of us are worried that Obama could be in danger from racist nutjobs who would like to see him dead. And I do believe Hillary is staying in the race at least partly because she hopes some scandal might happen that could make Obama unelectable. But not for one minute do I think she wants anything violent to happen to him. I think she said something stupid, which sounded like she meant something she didn't mean and now she sincerely regrets it.
So I don't think we should make a big deal about this. But then I didn't think we should make any big deal about Obama's "bitter" remark and the media as well as the Clinton campaign went nuts condemning Obama. So while I will not condemn her, I can't stop the press.
I guess when you play in the mud, you just might get dirty.
My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.
A lot of people are getting all worked up about this and I wish I could. It would be wonderful for us Obama supporters if Hillary said something so awful that she would finally be forced to go away.
But I am simply not that appalled by what she said. Yes, it was awkward, and yes you can read all kinds of things into it, but all I think she meant was that a lot of contests go on to June and beyond and nobody should get all worked up about it.
It was definitely not cool to use the reference to Bobby Kennedy's assassination, especially when a lot of us are worried that Obama could be in danger from racist nutjobs who would like to see him dead. And I do believe Hillary is staying in the race at least partly because she hopes some scandal might happen that could make Obama unelectable. But not for one minute do I think she wants anything violent to happen to him. I think she said something stupid, which sounded like she meant something she didn't mean and now she sincerely regrets it.
So I don't think we should make a big deal about this. But then I didn't think we should make any big deal about Obama's "bitter" remark and the media as well as the Clinton campaign went nuts condemning Obama. So while I will not condemn her, I can't stop the press.
I guess when you play in the mud, you just might get dirty.
My two cents on selection of the vice president
One of the reasons I did not support Hillary for president (though not the main one) was that I thought it would be terrible to have Bill back in the White House. For one thing, he tarnished that great place by his awful behavior there and it would be a travesty to let him return.
For another, it is impossible to muzzle Bill Clinton. There would always be the danger of Bill trying to grab the limelight, always the confusion over who was really the president, always the possibility of him becoming involved in another scandal. Bill Clinton is and always has been a loose cannon.
But I am even more concerned about Bill's behavior should Obama cave in and offer the vice presidency to Hillary. One can only imagine the trouble he could cause should he feel his wife was "cheated" out of the presidency. He would be the alpha male of all alpha males, competing with the President of the United States for attention and power. He could cripple Obama's presidency by encouraging Hillary to fight against, and even undermine, her boss.
There can only be one president at a time in this country, and Obama would need to assert over and over that it is not Bill. Obama's agenda could be diverted time and again with the work it would require to keep Bill in line.
But that is assuming an Obama - Clinton ticket could get elected, and I fear that having Clinton on the ticket could doom it, both from within and without. The Republicans have wanted Clinton as the presidential nominee all along, as they know how to defeat her. If they can't have her on the top of the ticket, they would like her in second place. She will energize them, and fire up their fundraising base. Republicans hate Hillary and can't wait to get at her and Bill again. That's why most of the Republican pundits are encouraging this ticket.
But the Clintons themselves could wreak havoc on this ticket. Look at how many times Bill has gotten his wife's campaign in trouble with his big mouth and big ego. Just imagine what he could do campaigning for Obama-Clinton. He could yell at reporters, assert untruths, build up his wife and in an indirect way make Obama look weak, distort Obama's message of change, etc., etc.,
Together, the Clintons could make it look like they are campaigning hard for Obama, but make enough mistakes on the trail that they undermine his ability to win, thus setting Hillary up to be the nominee in 2012. The only thing that would hurt her chance to be the frontrunner in 2012 would be the perception that she hurt Obama with her negative campaigning in the primaries. If she were on the ticket, no one could accuse her of hurting Obama, even as she was doing it.
I put nothing past the Clintons. They will do anything to gain power, even agreeing for Hillary to be on the ticket to sabotage Obama's chances.
Obama can't trust them. No one should trust them.
Please, Barack, pick someone else and then work to win over Hillary's supporters some other way.
For another, it is impossible to muzzle Bill Clinton. There would always be the danger of Bill trying to grab the limelight, always the confusion over who was really the president, always the possibility of him becoming involved in another scandal. Bill Clinton is and always has been a loose cannon.
But I am even more concerned about Bill's behavior should Obama cave in and offer the vice presidency to Hillary. One can only imagine the trouble he could cause should he feel his wife was "cheated" out of the presidency. He would be the alpha male of all alpha males, competing with the President of the United States for attention and power. He could cripple Obama's presidency by encouraging Hillary to fight against, and even undermine, her boss.
There can only be one president at a time in this country, and Obama would need to assert over and over that it is not Bill. Obama's agenda could be diverted time and again with the work it would require to keep Bill in line.
But that is assuming an Obama - Clinton ticket could get elected, and I fear that having Clinton on the ticket could doom it, both from within and without. The Republicans have wanted Clinton as the presidential nominee all along, as they know how to defeat her. If they can't have her on the top of the ticket, they would like her in second place. She will energize them, and fire up their fundraising base. Republicans hate Hillary and can't wait to get at her and Bill again. That's why most of the Republican pundits are encouraging this ticket.
But the Clintons themselves could wreak havoc on this ticket. Look at how many times Bill has gotten his wife's campaign in trouble with his big mouth and big ego. Just imagine what he could do campaigning for Obama-Clinton. He could yell at reporters, assert untruths, build up his wife and in an indirect way make Obama look weak, distort Obama's message of change, etc., etc.,
Together, the Clintons could make it look like they are campaigning hard for Obama, but make enough mistakes on the trail that they undermine his ability to win, thus setting Hillary up to be the nominee in 2012. The only thing that would hurt her chance to be the frontrunner in 2012 would be the perception that she hurt Obama with her negative campaigning in the primaries. If she were on the ticket, no one could accuse her of hurting Obama, even as she was doing it.
I put nothing past the Clintons. They will do anything to gain power, even agreeing for Hillary to be on the ticket to sabotage Obama's chances.
Obama can't trust them. No one should trust them.
Please, Barack, pick someone else and then work to win over Hillary's supporters some other way.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
The lessons of cancer
The sad news about Teddy Kennedy hit me in a very personal way. Just four months ago my 81 year old mother was diagnosed with acute myelogenous leukemia, a disease that has few treatment options when you are 81. So as I heard the limited options for the 76 year old Senator, and the shortened lifespan he now faces, I felt enormous compassion for him and his family. I know what it is to hear such terrible news, and to feel so helpless. I know what it is to hear the doctor lay out the limited options for treatment. I know what it is to have death become a part of the family.
But I also know what it is to hope. My mother is on an experimental drug that only had a 20% chance of success. Now, after two rounds of therapy, the leukemia appears to be in "remission," in as much as this disease can be in remission. The treatment isn't easy, although as chemo goes it has been relatively side effect free. No hair loss, no mouth sores. Only fatigue and some bone pain, and of course the frequent transfusions to replace the red blood cells and platelets that the chemo also destroys.
It has been a roller coaster. Blood tests twice a week tell us if we will have to schedule a transfusion. I do almost all of the driving as it isn't safe for my mother to drive, and my father has been unable to drive or accompany her to appointments because of his own illness. Some weeks are relatively calm, others totally chaotic. We never know what to expect. Each day brings a new challenge.
Yet this time is teaching me much about living one day at a time, enjoying the little things, and learning to live with full awareness of our mortality. It's amazing, really, how one learns to adjust to terrible news. It's astonishing how one learns to live with the reality of a loved one's terminal illness, moving from shock to horror to anxiety to grief to acceptance of the routine of cancer treatment and the inevitable outcome of the disease.
Senator Kennedy's family will learn to live with the reality of his disease and the ultimate outcome of it. They will learn to enjoy each day as it comes, as will he.
We know, of course, that we will all eventually die. And ultimately, there are only two manners of dying. There is the sudden death and there is the long illness, such as cancer. Senator Kennedy's brothers died suddenly, unable to prepare their families or the nation to live without them. Senator Kennedy for all these years has, in a sense, been trying to finish the grand work they left unfinished. Now he has a chance to prepare for his own death and choose the most important work he wants to accomplish before cancer takes him away.
I think, given the choice, he would prefer to have the time to prepare. I suspect, to the extent he is able, he will use that time wisely, enjoying his family, saying his goodbyes, and finishing the work he started forty six years ago when he first entered the United States Senate.
But I also know what it is to hope. My mother is on an experimental drug that only had a 20% chance of success. Now, after two rounds of therapy, the leukemia appears to be in "remission," in as much as this disease can be in remission. The treatment isn't easy, although as chemo goes it has been relatively side effect free. No hair loss, no mouth sores. Only fatigue and some bone pain, and of course the frequent transfusions to replace the red blood cells and platelets that the chemo also destroys.
It has been a roller coaster. Blood tests twice a week tell us if we will have to schedule a transfusion. I do almost all of the driving as it isn't safe for my mother to drive, and my father has been unable to drive or accompany her to appointments because of his own illness. Some weeks are relatively calm, others totally chaotic. We never know what to expect. Each day brings a new challenge.
Yet this time is teaching me much about living one day at a time, enjoying the little things, and learning to live with full awareness of our mortality. It's amazing, really, how one learns to adjust to terrible news. It's astonishing how one learns to live with the reality of a loved one's terminal illness, moving from shock to horror to anxiety to grief to acceptance of the routine of cancer treatment and the inevitable outcome of the disease.
Senator Kennedy's family will learn to live with the reality of his disease and the ultimate outcome of it. They will learn to enjoy each day as it comes, as will he.
We know, of course, that we will all eventually die. And ultimately, there are only two manners of dying. There is the sudden death and there is the long illness, such as cancer. Senator Kennedy's brothers died suddenly, unable to prepare their families or the nation to live without them. Senator Kennedy for all these years has, in a sense, been trying to finish the grand work they left unfinished. Now he has a chance to prepare for his own death and choose the most important work he wants to accomplish before cancer takes him away.
I think, given the choice, he would prefer to have the time to prepare. I suspect, to the extent he is able, he will use that time wisely, enjoying his family, saying his goodbyes, and finishing the work he started forty six years ago when he first entered the United States Senate.
Hillaryland
In Hillaryland, Hillary Clinton is losing because the nation isn't ready for a woman president, the media is sexist, and people (especially Barack Obama who didn't have the courtesy to wait his turn) haven't been fair to her.
It's not sexism that has doomed Hillary's campaign, as she is now claiming. Hillary Clinton will lose the Democratic nomination because of her flawed campaign, her wrong message, her focus on the past rather than the future, her connection to the Washington establishment, her Iraq War vote, her family name, and her behavior as a candidate.
It's not sexism that has doomed Hillary's campaign, as she is now claiming. Hillary Clinton will lose the Democratic nomination because of her flawed campaign, her wrong message, her focus on the past rather than the future, her connection to the Washington establishment, her Iraq War vote, her family name, and her behavior as a candidate.
Tuesday, May 20, 2008
It's their future we must preserve
I'm taking a much needed day off today to visit my daughter and grandchildren in Pasadena. It's been months since I spent a weekday with them as I used to at least once a month before my mother became ill. Her numbers from yesterday's blood test were good so it is safe - I think - to be so far away for a day.
Taking a day off from being on-call with my mother also means taking a day off from politics. My daughter never has her television set on and I will not have access to a computer, so I will have to listen to the radio on the way home to hear news about the primaries.
While that's a good thing, it will probably drive me a little crazy. Keeping up with political news is addictive, especially during a presidential election year, and especially with this historic contest between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. But three beautiful children are a great and powerful distraction.
I really will be glad when this nomination is decided and accepted by both candidates) and we can move on to the general election season, the conventions, and the actual election. I am anxious to see how, if at all, Obama shifts his strategy, how he plans to win over Hillary supporters, and what she will do to help him - and all of us - win. Because there is no doubt in my mind that a win for Obama is a win for every American, while a win for John McCain would be more of the same, more disastrous Bush economic and foreign policies, and four years of stagnation.
When I put my arms around my grandkids today, the thing that will matter to me most is their future. I want a president who will take us into the future, who will transform this country in ways it must be transformed, who will help all of us find our better selves, and who will truly make us safe from both terrorism and environmental threats. I have no doubt that Barack Obama is that person.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Explaining the "Obama is a Muslim" falsehood
Polls continue to show that a substantial number of Americans (anywhere from 7 to 15% depending on the poll) believe Barack Obama is a "Muslim." Pollsters and others have reported that even when respondents are told Obama is a Christian and not a Muslim, many continue to insist he is a Muslim. The caregiver who helps my parents believes he is a Muslim and she is a 65 year old white woman from France.
We humans are a curious species. We tend to believe what we want to believe. Hillary supporters believe what they want to believe about their candidate, and Obama supporters believe what they want to believe. McCain supporters likewise. But belief and fact are two different things. With religion, for instance, since there is no way for anyone to know with absolute certainly that there is a God, or that the vision one has of God is an accurate reflection of God, if there is a God, then humans must rely on faith, belief. But if an apple is put in front of you, and it fits every description of an apple, and it has been picked from an apple tree, then you can't continue to say it is a pear no matter how hungry you are for a pear, or how much you wish it were a pear, or how much Republicans try to tell you its a pear.
So how is it that so many Americans, in the face of monumental evidence to the contrary (Obama's 20 year membership in a Christian Church, the baptism of his two daughters, the way he speaks about his faith, the witness of fellow church members, etc.) continue to believe Barack Obama is a Muslim? I have compiled a list of possibilities.
1. The people who believe Obama is a Muslim have been subjected to propaganda and innuendo by the right wing smear machine that wants to destroy Obama as a candidate.
They are told he had a Muslim father and went to a Madrassa when he was a child. These are distortions of the truth. Obama's father was from Kenya, and while raised a Muslim, was an atheist by the time he met Obama's mother. He left the family when Obama was two years old and had no real influence on Obama's upbringing or faith. Obama's mother then married an Indonesian man who had also been a Muslim, but was a non-practicing one. While in Indonesia, Obama went to a public school for two years, which had Muslim students and teachers but which also had students of other faiths, and to a Catholic school for two years. Obama's mother was an atheist herself and not willing to expose her son to radical religious beliefs, which she would have rejected.
Propagandists who insist Obama is a Muslim also spread the rumor that he won't say the pledge of allegience and he took his Senate oath of office on a Koran. Both of these are false. The first is based on a picture of Obama and some of his fellow candidates standing for the national anthem. He does not have his hand over his heart, as many people do not have their hands over their hearts during the playing of the National Anthem, such as when they attend a sporting event. (This was NOT the recitation of the Pledge of Allegience when Obama, like all good Americans, does put his hand over his heart.) The second rumor is the result of the conflation of another black American, Keith Ellison, with Obama. Ellison is a new congressman from Minnesota who did take the oath of office on the Koran and caused a stir among right wing circles. Obama, who is a Christian, took the oath of office on the Bible.
2. The people who believe Obama is a Muslim don't understand what a Muslim is.
They typically confuse being of Arab or African ancestry with being a Muslim and think they are interchangeable. They have never heard of Arab Christians, or African Christians, or even Arab or African atheists. Obama has dark skin and an African father, so he must be Muslim. This is somewhat understandable as most Americans had absolutely no idea what Islam was, or who Muslims were prior to 9/11. So the easiest thing to believe is that Islam is an evil religion (nationality) and Muslims are evil people and anyone with an Arab or African name and dark skin must be a Muslim.
3. The people who believe Obama is a Muslim are afraid and their fears are easily exploited.
People who are fearful will believe all kinds of things. Many people adopt or maintain religious beliefs, after all, because they are afraid of death, or what comes after death, or the devil, or God, or people who might hurt them. Prayer becomes a sort of protection against harm. When the horrors of 9/11 occurred and the American people became frightened of people who were called Muslims (who all had dark skin) there was no effort made to understand anything about this religion practiced by one fourth of the world's people, nor to distinguish the religion from the many nationalities that practiced it. To be Muslim meant to be evil, suspicious, un-American.
4. Some of the people who believe Obama is a Muslim are racist.
Unfortunately, too many of those who choose to believe that Obama is a Muslim - not only a Muslim, but one who means to do harm to the United States - believe it because it gives them a reason to be opposed to the candidacy of a black man. It is no longer politically correct, nor morally acceptable for citizens of this country to be overtly racist, yet many remain covertly racist. Those who would never vote for Obama because he is black, or who harbor irrational fears of what it would mean to the white race should a black man finally become president, are looking for any excuse to indulge their prejudices without being seen as "racist." Believing Obama is a Muslim, especially after 9/11 when Muslims became the enemy to many uneducated Americans, gives these voters an excuse to vote against the black man.
It will be an uphill battle for Obama to allay people's fears and correct the misinformation people have. It will take countelss speeches and getting to know as many people as possible. It will take a lot of help from his supporters in their discussions with their fellow citizens. That will help to take care of the education and fear part. But nothing will help overcome the racism, or the propaganda spewed by Republican operatives, except a victory in November.
If Obama is elected, and the people come to see him as a good and decent man, a patriot, and a competent leader, we might just make a dent in the racism that still infects far too large a segment of the population.
We humans are a curious species. We tend to believe what we want to believe. Hillary supporters believe what they want to believe about their candidate, and Obama supporters believe what they want to believe. McCain supporters likewise. But belief and fact are two different things. With religion, for instance, since there is no way for anyone to know with absolute certainly that there is a God, or that the vision one has of God is an accurate reflection of God, if there is a God, then humans must rely on faith, belief. But if an apple is put in front of you, and it fits every description of an apple, and it has been picked from an apple tree, then you can't continue to say it is a pear no matter how hungry you are for a pear, or how much you wish it were a pear, or how much Republicans try to tell you its a pear.
So how is it that so many Americans, in the face of monumental evidence to the contrary (Obama's 20 year membership in a Christian Church, the baptism of his two daughters, the way he speaks about his faith, the witness of fellow church members, etc.) continue to believe Barack Obama is a Muslim? I have compiled a list of possibilities.
1. The people who believe Obama is a Muslim have been subjected to propaganda and innuendo by the right wing smear machine that wants to destroy Obama as a candidate.
They are told he had a Muslim father and went to a Madrassa when he was a child. These are distortions of the truth. Obama's father was from Kenya, and while raised a Muslim, was an atheist by the time he met Obama's mother. He left the family when Obama was two years old and had no real influence on Obama's upbringing or faith. Obama's mother then married an Indonesian man who had also been a Muslim, but was a non-practicing one. While in Indonesia, Obama went to a public school for two years, which had Muslim students and teachers but which also had students of other faiths, and to a Catholic school for two years. Obama's mother was an atheist herself and not willing to expose her son to radical religious beliefs, which she would have rejected.
Propagandists who insist Obama is a Muslim also spread the rumor that he won't say the pledge of allegience and he took his Senate oath of office on a Koran. Both of these are false. The first is based on a picture of Obama and some of his fellow candidates standing for the national anthem. He does not have his hand over his heart, as many people do not have their hands over their hearts during the playing of the National Anthem, such as when they attend a sporting event. (This was NOT the recitation of the Pledge of Allegience when Obama, like all good Americans, does put his hand over his heart.) The second rumor is the result of the conflation of another black American, Keith Ellison, with Obama. Ellison is a new congressman from Minnesota who did take the oath of office on the Koran and caused a stir among right wing circles. Obama, who is a Christian, took the oath of office on the Bible.
2. The people who believe Obama is a Muslim don't understand what a Muslim is.
They typically confuse being of Arab or African ancestry with being a Muslim and think they are interchangeable. They have never heard of Arab Christians, or African Christians, or even Arab or African atheists. Obama has dark skin and an African father, so he must be Muslim. This is somewhat understandable as most Americans had absolutely no idea what Islam was, or who Muslims were prior to 9/11. So the easiest thing to believe is that Islam is an evil religion (nationality) and Muslims are evil people and anyone with an Arab or African name and dark skin must be a Muslim.
3. The people who believe Obama is a Muslim are afraid and their fears are easily exploited.
People who are fearful will believe all kinds of things. Many people adopt or maintain religious beliefs, after all, because they are afraid of death, or what comes after death, or the devil, or God, or people who might hurt them. Prayer becomes a sort of protection against harm. When the horrors of 9/11 occurred and the American people became frightened of people who were called Muslims (who all had dark skin) there was no effort made to understand anything about this religion practiced by one fourth of the world's people, nor to distinguish the religion from the many nationalities that practiced it. To be Muslim meant to be evil, suspicious, un-American.
4. Some of the people who believe Obama is a Muslim are racist.
Unfortunately, too many of those who choose to believe that Obama is a Muslim - not only a Muslim, but one who means to do harm to the United States - believe it because it gives them a reason to be opposed to the candidacy of a black man. It is no longer politically correct, nor morally acceptable for citizens of this country to be overtly racist, yet many remain covertly racist. Those who would never vote for Obama because he is black, or who harbor irrational fears of what it would mean to the white race should a black man finally become president, are looking for any excuse to indulge their prejudices without being seen as "racist." Believing Obama is a Muslim, especially after 9/11 when Muslims became the enemy to many uneducated Americans, gives these voters an excuse to vote against the black man.
It will be an uphill battle for Obama to allay people's fears and correct the misinformation people have. It will take countelss speeches and getting to know as many people as possible. It will take a lot of help from his supporters in their discussions with their fellow citizens. That will help to take care of the education and fear part. But nothing will help overcome the racism, or the propaganda spewed by Republican operatives, except a victory in November.
If Obama is elected, and the people come to see him as a good and decent man, a patriot, and a competent leader, we might just make a dent in the racism that still infects far too large a segment of the population.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Some things aren't funny
Yesterday, while speaking to the NRA, former Arkansas Governor and recent Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said this after hearing a loud noise offstage:
The liberal blogs are understandably outraged. To joke about anyone aiming a gun at a presidential candidate is not only bad taste, it's the kind of thing that would get you arrested at a campaign rally if you were just an ordinary citizen.
At this moment there are men surrounding Obama who have sworn to give their lives to protect him. We pay their salaries because we think it is that important to our democracy to keep our candidates from being eliminated before the ballots are even cast.
How sad that in this once enlightened country we have to do that. How sad that we do not feel so privileged, so grateful to have inherted this democracy from our ancestors that violence against a candidate, or even joking about violence against a candidate, would never happen here.
I don't know what was in the mind of Mike Huckabee. Not much, it seems, because he sure didn't give that comment much thought. Whether or not it reveals something more fundamentally flawed about this man I can't say.
But if you add this joke to the words of one person in West Virginia who, according to the Washington Post, said of Obama "hang that darky from a tree," you realize we still have serious racial problems in this country.
There are so many things to condemn about what Huckabee said. I suppose if he was out hunting with Dick Cheney and heard a loud noise and said that was Cheney shooting and everybody ducked you might be able to consider it funny, though I don't think many of us would.
But to joke about the presumptive Democratic nominee, when many of us still remember the Kennedys, the Democratic president and Democratic presidential candidate, who were assassinated in our lifetimes, is reprehensible. And when the nominee also happens to be black, when so many black leaders were assassinated in their fight for civil rights, the "joke" is beyond tasteless. It is dangerous.
I don't think Mike Huckabee is a bad person. I think he is a smart, funny, and well meaning individual. And I would imagine he deeply regrets his comments and will apologize for them. But the fact that someone this accomplished, who was recently prominent on the national stage, could be so clueless, so insensitive, and so capable of allowing something like this to come out of his mouth, tells me we still have a very long way to go in this country to overcome our inclinations to violence as well as racism.
Some things simply aren't funny. Aiming a gun at someone, and a political candidate being in fear of assassination are two of those things.
That was Barack Obama, he just tripped off a chair, he's getting ready to speak. Somebody aimed a gun at him and he dove for the floor.
The liberal blogs are understandably outraged. To joke about anyone aiming a gun at a presidential candidate is not only bad taste, it's the kind of thing that would get you arrested at a campaign rally if you were just an ordinary citizen.
At this moment there are men surrounding Obama who have sworn to give their lives to protect him. We pay their salaries because we think it is that important to our democracy to keep our candidates from being eliminated before the ballots are even cast.
How sad that in this once enlightened country we have to do that. How sad that we do not feel so privileged, so grateful to have inherted this democracy from our ancestors that violence against a candidate, or even joking about violence against a candidate, would never happen here.
I don't know what was in the mind of Mike Huckabee. Not much, it seems, because he sure didn't give that comment much thought. Whether or not it reveals something more fundamentally flawed about this man I can't say.
But if you add this joke to the words of one person in West Virginia who, according to the Washington Post, said of Obama "hang that darky from a tree," you realize we still have serious racial problems in this country.
There are so many things to condemn about what Huckabee said. I suppose if he was out hunting with Dick Cheney and heard a loud noise and said that was Cheney shooting and everybody ducked you might be able to consider it funny, though I don't think many of us would.
But to joke about the presumptive Democratic nominee, when many of us still remember the Kennedys, the Democratic president and Democratic presidential candidate, who were assassinated in our lifetimes, is reprehensible. And when the nominee also happens to be black, when so many black leaders were assassinated in their fight for civil rights, the "joke" is beyond tasteless. It is dangerous.
I don't think Mike Huckabee is a bad person. I think he is a smart, funny, and well meaning individual. And I would imagine he deeply regrets his comments and will apologize for them. But the fact that someone this accomplished, who was recently prominent on the national stage, could be so clueless, so insensitive, and so capable of allowing something like this to come out of his mouth, tells me we still have a very long way to go in this country to overcome our inclinations to violence as well as racism.
Some things simply aren't funny. Aiming a gun at someone, and a political candidate being in fear of assassination are two of those things.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Could. We. Please. Stop?
Could bloggers and newspaper columnists please stop doing the cute short emphatic statement where every word is its own sentence, followed by a period? It's getting tiresome.
I don't know when this silliness started but it reminds me of when everything was "the greatest thing since sliced bread" or when everyone started saying "twenty-four seven."
Whatever happened to originality?
So. Could. We. Please. Stop?
I don't know when this silliness started but it reminds me of when everything was "the greatest thing since sliced bread" or when everyone started saying "twenty-four seven."
Whatever happened to originality?
So. Could. We. Please. Stop?
What did Neville Chamberlain do?
If you haven't seen this yet, you must see it.
Chris Matthews, who is famous for rudely interrupting his guests because he prefers to hear himself talk, actually put his interrupting prowess to good use last night. He demanded that a conservative Los Angeles talk show host, who was praising Bush's insinuation in Israel that Obama was an "appeaser" like Neville Chamberlain, tell him what it was that Neville Chamberlain did that was so wrong.
The talk show bloviator, who had apparently only recieved the memo to use the talking point that Obama was an "appeaser," could not give him an answer. He huffed and puffed and yelled and got red in the face, but could not say what Neville Chamberlain did that made him an "appeaser."
Finally Chris educated him. Neville Chamberlain, British Prime Minister from 1937 to 1940, had appeased Hitler by giving him part of Czechoslovakia as part of the 1938 Munich Agreement. As Chris noted, there is a huge difference between talking to your enemy - as Obama wants to do - and giving in to his demands, or allowing him to claim part of a sovereign country as his own.
And other good news related to Bush's outrageous speech in Israel, Clinton supporters James Rubin and Paul Begala have both written and spoken up in defense of Obama and against Bush. And Hillary herself weighed in yesterday with her condemnation of Bush for his remarks and her support of Obama.
Hopefully, these events signal the media's willingness to present truth more than spin, and Hillary's willingness to begin the reunification of the party.
Chris Matthews, who is famous for rudely interrupting his guests because he prefers to hear himself talk, actually put his interrupting prowess to good use last night. He demanded that a conservative Los Angeles talk show host, who was praising Bush's insinuation in Israel that Obama was an "appeaser" like Neville Chamberlain, tell him what it was that Neville Chamberlain did that was so wrong.
The talk show bloviator, who had apparently only recieved the memo to use the talking point that Obama was an "appeaser," could not give him an answer. He huffed and puffed and yelled and got red in the face, but could not say what Neville Chamberlain did that made him an "appeaser."
Finally Chris educated him. Neville Chamberlain, British Prime Minister from 1937 to 1940, had appeased Hitler by giving him part of Czechoslovakia as part of the 1938 Munich Agreement. As Chris noted, there is a huge difference between talking to your enemy - as Obama wants to do - and giving in to his demands, or allowing him to claim part of a sovereign country as his own.
And other good news related to Bush's outrageous speech in Israel, Clinton supporters James Rubin and Paul Begala have both written and spoken up in defense of Obama and against Bush. And Hillary herself weighed in yesterday with her condemnation of Bush for his remarks and her support of Obama.
Hopefully, these events signal the media's willingness to present truth more than spin, and Hillary's willingness to begin the reunification of the party.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
The rudeness of unwanted phone calls
I wrote a few weeks ago about how our consumer culture and the greed of corporations are huge problems when one is facing a family tragedy.
I am currently dealing with my mother's leukemia and my father's degenerative neurological disease, and when I am able to be at my own house for a day or two, with a caregiver watching over them, I have a rare chance to relax, catch up on laundry, watch a little television, and write.
The one thing that interrupts that brief respite is a ringing phone. I am always somewhat on alert, aware that anything can happen at any time with either one of them, and so a phone call often signals a crisis and the need to get in my car and go to my parents' house. If it turns out that the call is a telemarketer, or someone else wanting something from me, my stress response doesn't immediately go back to normal. It takes a while to calm down.
So I do not look kindly on telemarketers, political calls, or solicitations for charities. I have an unlisted number, but that doesn't seem to matter. People not only call, they address me by name. How is that possible?
What these people don't stop to think about are all the people like me who have come to dread a ringing phone. There are others who have trouble walking or getting up and who are physically inconvenienced when the phone rings.
In my mind, people who are willing to use the phone to annoy the people they call just to get some money for something, no matter how deserving the cause, are inconsiderate and rude.
I don't have caller ID on my phone, which I suppose I should get, but I would still have to get up when the phone rings in order to check who the caller is, unless I carry the phone with me everywhere I go. And I would still have that alarm response everytime it rings. For now, I can't afford to ignore the phone in case it is my mother or the caregiver.
I have come to hate the telephone and my only recourse is to hang up instantly on anyone who is not a family member or a doctor. I don't care how rude it is.
Courtesy is something that went out the window long ago in this country. People who want your money don't care one whit if they inconvenience you, or frighten you, or cause you stress. So I feel no guilt at all about being rude myself.
Maybe if we all treated unwanted calls this way, they would stop.
I am currently dealing with my mother's leukemia and my father's degenerative neurological disease, and when I am able to be at my own house for a day or two, with a caregiver watching over them, I have a rare chance to relax, catch up on laundry, watch a little television, and write.
The one thing that interrupts that brief respite is a ringing phone. I am always somewhat on alert, aware that anything can happen at any time with either one of them, and so a phone call often signals a crisis and the need to get in my car and go to my parents' house. If it turns out that the call is a telemarketer, or someone else wanting something from me, my stress response doesn't immediately go back to normal. It takes a while to calm down.
So I do not look kindly on telemarketers, political calls, or solicitations for charities. I have an unlisted number, but that doesn't seem to matter. People not only call, they address me by name. How is that possible?
What these people don't stop to think about are all the people like me who have come to dread a ringing phone. There are others who have trouble walking or getting up and who are physically inconvenienced when the phone rings.
In my mind, people who are willing to use the phone to annoy the people they call just to get some money for something, no matter how deserving the cause, are inconsiderate and rude.
I don't have caller ID on my phone, which I suppose I should get, but I would still have to get up when the phone rings in order to check who the caller is, unless I carry the phone with me everywhere I go. And I would still have that alarm response everytime it rings. For now, I can't afford to ignore the phone in case it is my mother or the caregiver.
I have come to hate the telephone and my only recourse is to hang up instantly on anyone who is not a family member or a doctor. I don't care how rude it is.
Courtesy is something that went out the window long ago in this country. People who want your money don't care one whit if they inconvenience you, or frighten you, or cause you stress. So I feel no guilt at all about being rude myself.
Maybe if we all treated unwanted calls this way, they would stop.
Twelve reasons Obama will win in November
I may be premature in this, but I believe Barack Obama will not only win the Democratic nomination, but will become the 44th President of the United States and the first person of color ever to hold that office.
Here's why:
1. McCain is too old. He is already making mistakes on the campaign trail that signal memory problems. On the debate stage, next to John McCain, Barack will look more youthful and sound more wise. The difference will be obvious and will not help McCain.
2. People are tired of the War in Iraq. In a year in which the American people are weary of war, being a war hero is simply not enough to get one elected. It doesn't help that McCain says the American poeople won't mind being in Iraq for 100 years.
3. The Republican brand is on life support. Congressional special elections in Republican districts are all going Democratic, even when the Republicans try to link the Democratic candidates with Obama and Jeremiah Wright.
4. The Baby Boomers' time is over. Young Americans are supporting Obama in large numbers and are convincing their parents and grandparents that they know what they are doing in supporting Obama. Obama offers a refreshing vision of an America no longer looking to the conflicts of the sixties to define itself.
5. McCain offers nothing to soothe the ills of the nation. The economy, gas prices, and health care are three of the biggest concerns of the American people and these are three areas where McCain has no solutions. Obama has or will present comprehensive plans for relief in all three areas, and will make McCain – who must please the conservative base that wants limited federal programs - look out of touch.
6. The smear machine and dog whistle have lost their power. The typical Republican tactic of painting the Democrats as weak on defense, as "defeatocrats" or as appeasers will backfire on them. The American people will remember that they fell for that in 2004 and they will not do it again. And while racist dog whistle code words may be used against him, Obama has the temperament and the strategy to overcome this.
7. "Liberal" is no longer a dirty word. The American people are actually much more liberal than the Republicans think they are, and conservative ideology is both out of fashion and exposed as a fraud. The people want answers and solutions, and they want them from government, not from the unregulated private sector, which has proven to be so corrupt and brought them so much misery.
8. Evangelicals are divided. John McCain will not have enthusiastic support from the evangelical community, both because he is not seen as one of them and because the community is not as united as it once was. Young evangelicals are more open-minded than their parents and grandparents, and some Democratic issues, like the importance of protecting the environment, are very important to them. Wedge issues like abortion and homosexuality will simply not have the power in a year when Bush's war and the Republican economy are weakening our country and hurting the average family.
9. John McCain will be seen as running for Bush's third term. There are too many sound bites and photos of McCain supporting Bush, and too many votes for Bush's policies, to enable him to adequately distance himself from the nation's most unpopular president ever. McCain's reputation as a "maverick" will not hold up. More likely he will be seen as a one time maverick who is now a political opportunist, what the Republicans like to call a "flip-flopper."
10. Barack Obama is more charismatic than John McCain. Not only does he represent a new kind of politics, one that moves beyond the conflicts of the sixties, but he is generating tremendous enthusiasm among his supporters, based partly on his persona. Obama has charisma and is able to win people over once they get to know him. The candidate with the most charisma (eg. Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton) always has an advantage over his opponent.
11. The American people want a leader, not a follower. Obama has set the themes of this campaign, and McCain is now trying to imitate him, just as Hillary tried to do. Obama's early recognition that this is a year in which the American people want change, and his early success in communicating that message, has put McCain in the position of also calling for change, and thus being a follower rather than a leader.
12. Obama has the right temperament. Presidents are expected to be measured in their emotional responses. Hillary Clinton and the Republicans have and will throw just about anything at Obama in order to defeat him. In every instance so far, Barack has remained calm. He shows the right amount of humor in response to some tactics, and indignation in response to others. There are no sound bites, no videotape, and no anecdotes of Obama losing his temper. This is not true of McCain, who is known to lose his temper quite often.
Here's why:
1. McCain is too old. He is already making mistakes on the campaign trail that signal memory problems. On the debate stage, next to John McCain, Barack will look more youthful and sound more wise. The difference will be obvious and will not help McCain.
2. People are tired of the War in Iraq. In a year in which the American people are weary of war, being a war hero is simply not enough to get one elected. It doesn't help that McCain says the American poeople won't mind being in Iraq for 100 years.
3. The Republican brand is on life support. Congressional special elections in Republican districts are all going Democratic, even when the Republicans try to link the Democratic candidates with Obama and Jeremiah Wright.
4. The Baby Boomers' time is over. Young Americans are supporting Obama in large numbers and are convincing their parents and grandparents that they know what they are doing in supporting Obama. Obama offers a refreshing vision of an America no longer looking to the conflicts of the sixties to define itself.
5. McCain offers nothing to soothe the ills of the nation. The economy, gas prices, and health care are three of the biggest concerns of the American people and these are three areas where McCain has no solutions. Obama has or will present comprehensive plans for relief in all three areas, and will make McCain – who must please the conservative base that wants limited federal programs - look out of touch.
6. The smear machine and dog whistle have lost their power. The typical Republican tactic of painting the Democrats as weak on defense, as "defeatocrats" or as appeasers will backfire on them. The American people will remember that they fell for that in 2004 and they will not do it again. And while racist dog whistle code words may be used against him, Obama has the temperament and the strategy to overcome this.
7. "Liberal" is no longer a dirty word. The American people are actually much more liberal than the Republicans think they are, and conservative ideology is both out of fashion and exposed as a fraud. The people want answers and solutions, and they want them from government, not from the unregulated private sector, which has proven to be so corrupt and brought them so much misery.
8. Evangelicals are divided. John McCain will not have enthusiastic support from the evangelical community, both because he is not seen as one of them and because the community is not as united as it once was. Young evangelicals are more open-minded than their parents and grandparents, and some Democratic issues, like the importance of protecting the environment, are very important to them. Wedge issues like abortion and homosexuality will simply not have the power in a year when Bush's war and the Republican economy are weakening our country and hurting the average family.
9. John McCain will be seen as running for Bush's third term. There are too many sound bites and photos of McCain supporting Bush, and too many votes for Bush's policies, to enable him to adequately distance himself from the nation's most unpopular president ever. McCain's reputation as a "maverick" will not hold up. More likely he will be seen as a one time maverick who is now a political opportunist, what the Republicans like to call a "flip-flopper."
10. Barack Obama is more charismatic than John McCain. Not only does he represent a new kind of politics, one that moves beyond the conflicts of the sixties, but he is generating tremendous enthusiasm among his supporters, based partly on his persona. Obama has charisma and is able to win people over once they get to know him. The candidate with the most charisma (eg. Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton) always has an advantage over his opponent.
11. The American people want a leader, not a follower. Obama has set the themes of this campaign, and McCain is now trying to imitate him, just as Hillary tried to do. Obama's early recognition that this is a year in which the American people want change, and his early success in communicating that message, has put McCain in the position of also calling for change, and thus being a follower rather than a leader.
12. Obama has the right temperament. Presidents are expected to be measured in their emotional responses. Hillary Clinton and the Republicans have and will throw just about anything at Obama in order to defeat him. In every instance so far, Barack has remained calm. He shows the right amount of humor in response to some tactics, and indignation in response to others. There are no sound bites, no videotape, and no anecdotes of Obama losing his temper. This is not true of McCain, who is known to lose his temper quite often.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Florida, Michigan, and endorsing Obama
There are two states where Obama had not campaigned because they violated DNC rules: Michigan and Florida. Now, of course, Obama has to introduce himself to those voters and assure them that they are as important as all the other states.
The only two big names who had still not endorsed either candidate were John Edwards, and Al Gore.
Today, Obama was campaigning in Michigan for the first time and he brought John Edwards with him. Bringing out the Edwards' endorsment today, than 24 hours after Clinton's huge victory in West Virginia, and just in time to be shown live on network news, was a brilliant political move.
The only thing better would be holding Obama's first political event in Florida on the day after the Kentucky and Oregon primaries, and bringing out Al Gore to endorse him.
You don't suppose....?
The only two big names who had still not endorsed either candidate were John Edwards, and Al Gore.
Today, Obama was campaigning in Michigan for the first time and he brought John Edwards with him. Bringing out the Edwards' endorsment today, than 24 hours after Clinton's huge victory in West Virginia, and just in time to be shown live on network news, was a brilliant political move.
The only thing better would be holding Obama's first political event in Florida on the day after the Kentucky and Oregon primaries, and bringing out Al Gore to endorse him.
You don't suppose....?
The sad psychology of Hillary Clinton
Anyone who reads this blog should know that I am not a political pundit, nor an expert on political science, nor even someone who has done any work on a political campaign (except for a little work on one congressional race in 2006). I don't claim to have any real understanding of political strategy as practiced by professional politicians and campaign advisors. Sometimes I am clueless as to why they make the decisions they make. I feel that way now about Hillary Clinton and her ridiculous determination to keep going in this campaign even though she doesn't have a prayer, in spite of the confetti and b.s. she threw all over a room in West Virginia last night.
What I bring to my writing is a knowledge of human behavior which I have gathered over my four years in graduate school, earning a Ph.D. in psychology, my 25 years practicing psychotherapy, and my nearly 30 years raising children.
So when I look at Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, granted from a distance, I see interesting psychological realities, some of which I have written about before.
Mostly, I see Obama as an ambitious young man, determined to succeed and make a name for himself. I also see a caring and kind person, and a person who has benefited from his many life situations, including losing his father at a young age, living with a single mom and grandparents, living in other countries, being half black and half white and having to create his own identity. I see a man without a lot of baggage, with a healthy ego but not a narcissistic one, a man who both embodies and seeks to unite people of different perspectives. I see a true feminist, one who simply assumes equality between men and women and so doesn't have to continually talk about it. I also see a true post-racial man, one who doesn't have to bring up his race, or racial issues, at all because he knows there are ways to solve racial problems withough highlighting race. Finally, I see a man with an even temperament, one who doesn't get too excited or too upset, no matter what is thrown at him. He takes his time in responding to attacks, knowing that his actions matter. Since his actions as president will matter to millions of people, this is an excellent attribute.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, comes with a lot of baggage. She, too, is ambitious, and determined to follow her dreams. She has a guiding political ideology, from a life spent mostly in politics, and is desperate to implement it. However, her desperation also comes from her feelings of entitlement. Hillary sees the presidency as something she has earned, not in this campaign which was only supposed to be an exercise to go through and not a real fight, but eight years ago, when she was shamed on the national stage as a scorned woman. Hillary, I don't believe, has gotten over that. The American people, in her mind, owe her one, and she is not going to leave until she gets it, or someone throws her out. She is thus making something of a fool of herself in insisting she still has a shot.
Hillary is also using all the old grudges of feminism to fuel this campaign. Supporters who are her age or older, who went through the women's movement certain they deserved better than they were getting in life and in electoral politics, see her as the great white female hope. And she loves carrying that mantle. She will play on female resentments, just as she will play on racial resentments because she cannot believe that the Democratic Party, and the people who are Democratic voters, are willing to choose a young upstart over her. While Obama wants to move the country past the sixties divide based on gender, Hillary wants to revive it, building a base of loyal women who harbor resentment over the male ownership of the presidency. While Obama also wants to move the country past its long racial divide, Hillary wants to remind people in covert and overt ways that Obama is black, and does not understand "hard-working white" folks. And finally, Hillary's temperament is simply not presidential. She goes from tears to shouts to mocking insults and sarcasm. She has "found her voice" and her stride so many times in this election season that one wonders if she knows who she really is.
I have learned a great many things over the years as a psychotherapist and mother. I have learned that life is not fair, that bad things happen to good people and vice versa, that we can't have it all, and sometimes we can't even have very much, that everyone suffers disappointments and that people don't always get what they deserve. These are lessons Hillary Clinton seems not to have learned.
She refuses to believe life is not fair. She thinks she can make it fair (to her). All she has to do is change the rules until she finds a set that will let her win. She thinks she and Bill can have it all. Not only does he get to be president, but so does she. She thinks people should get what they deserve and she thinks she deserves the White House. Certainly a young black man like Barack Obama doesn't deserve the White House. Unlike her, he hasn't paid his dues. So she justifies any and all attacks (including dishonest and racial ones) on him as fair.
The media calls this determination and grit. She calls it being a "fighter." Her advisors call it smart strategy. I call it being an immature baby who is having a tantrum and won't accept the realities of life that other people learn to live by.
Grow up, Hillary! Move on and find happiness some other way, like dignified and psychologically healthy people do when they have to accept the reality that they can't have everything they want, no matter how badly they want it.
What I bring to my writing is a knowledge of human behavior which I have gathered over my four years in graduate school, earning a Ph.D. in psychology, my 25 years practicing psychotherapy, and my nearly 30 years raising children.
So when I look at Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, granted from a distance, I see interesting psychological realities, some of which I have written about before.
Mostly, I see Obama as an ambitious young man, determined to succeed and make a name for himself. I also see a caring and kind person, and a person who has benefited from his many life situations, including losing his father at a young age, living with a single mom and grandparents, living in other countries, being half black and half white and having to create his own identity. I see a man without a lot of baggage, with a healthy ego but not a narcissistic one, a man who both embodies and seeks to unite people of different perspectives. I see a true feminist, one who simply assumes equality between men and women and so doesn't have to continually talk about it. I also see a true post-racial man, one who doesn't have to bring up his race, or racial issues, at all because he knows there are ways to solve racial problems withough highlighting race. Finally, I see a man with an even temperament, one who doesn't get too excited or too upset, no matter what is thrown at him. He takes his time in responding to attacks, knowing that his actions matter. Since his actions as president will matter to millions of people, this is an excellent attribute.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, comes with a lot of baggage. She, too, is ambitious, and determined to follow her dreams. She has a guiding political ideology, from a life spent mostly in politics, and is desperate to implement it. However, her desperation also comes from her feelings of entitlement. Hillary sees the presidency as something she has earned, not in this campaign which was only supposed to be an exercise to go through and not a real fight, but eight years ago, when she was shamed on the national stage as a scorned woman. Hillary, I don't believe, has gotten over that. The American people, in her mind, owe her one, and she is not going to leave until she gets it, or someone throws her out. She is thus making something of a fool of herself in insisting she still has a shot.
Hillary is also using all the old grudges of feminism to fuel this campaign. Supporters who are her age or older, who went through the women's movement certain they deserved better than they were getting in life and in electoral politics, see her as the great white female hope. And she loves carrying that mantle. She will play on female resentments, just as she will play on racial resentments because she cannot believe that the Democratic Party, and the people who are Democratic voters, are willing to choose a young upstart over her. While Obama wants to move the country past the sixties divide based on gender, Hillary wants to revive it, building a base of loyal women who harbor resentment over the male ownership of the presidency. While Obama also wants to move the country past its long racial divide, Hillary wants to remind people in covert and overt ways that Obama is black, and does not understand "hard-working white" folks. And finally, Hillary's temperament is simply not presidential. She goes from tears to shouts to mocking insults and sarcasm. She has "found her voice" and her stride so many times in this election season that one wonders if she knows who she really is.
I have learned a great many things over the years as a psychotherapist and mother. I have learned that life is not fair, that bad things happen to good people and vice versa, that we can't have it all, and sometimes we can't even have very much, that everyone suffers disappointments and that people don't always get what they deserve. These are lessons Hillary Clinton seems not to have learned.
She refuses to believe life is not fair. She thinks she can make it fair (to her). All she has to do is change the rules until she finds a set that will let her win. She thinks she and Bill can have it all. Not only does he get to be president, but so does she. She thinks people should get what they deserve and she thinks she deserves the White House. Certainly a young black man like Barack Obama doesn't deserve the White House. Unlike her, he hasn't paid his dues. So she justifies any and all attacks (including dishonest and racial ones) on him as fair.
The media calls this determination and grit. She calls it being a "fighter." Her advisors call it smart strategy. I call it being an immature baby who is having a tantrum and won't accept the realities of life that other people learn to live by.
Grow up, Hillary! Move on and find happiness some other way, like dignified and psychologically healthy people do when they have to accept the reality that they can't have everything they want, no matter how badly they want it.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Hillary's choice: cynical manipulation or a grand opportunity?
The Washington Post is out with a story today about the overt racism encountered by young Obama volunteers on the campaign trail.
I read the story and felt sick. I know - intellectually at least - there is still racism in this country, and I know the Republicans have been exploiting it in the South for decades. I wasn't prepared for it to show itself among Democrats.
Naively, I suppose, I thought the worst of racism was behind us. If the worst means slavery and lynching, then the worst hopefully is behind us. But in reading this article and hearing the things people are still willing to do and say to someone who is African American or is promoting an African American candidate, I have come to realize there is still terrible potential for racially motivated violence.
According to the article, doors are slammed in campaign workers' faces, Obama headquarters are vandalized and windows spray painted with racial slurs and references to the false rumors that Obama is a Muslim. A group of young black volunteers holding Obama signs on the side of the road in Kokomo, Indiana were greeted by angry motorists who yelled racial slurs at them. And this…
I read the story and felt sick. I know - intellectually at least - there is still racism in this country, and I know the Republicans have been exploiting it in the South for decades. I wasn't prepared for it to show itself among Democrats.
Naively, I suppose, I thought the worst of racism was behind us. If the worst means slavery and lynching, then the worst hopefully is behind us. But in reading this article and hearing the things people are still willing to do and say to someone who is African American or is promoting an African American candidate, I have come to realize there is still terrible potential for racially motivated violence.
According to the article, doors are slammed in campaign workers' faces, Obama headquarters are vandalized and windows spray painted with racial slurs and references to the false rumors that Obama is a Muslim. A group of young black volunteers holding Obama signs on the side of the road in Kokomo, Indiana were greeted by angry motorists who yelled racial slurs at them. And this…
In a letter to the editor published in a local paper, Tunkhannock Borough Mayor Norm Ball explained his support of Hillary Clinton this way: "Barack Hussein Obama and all of his talk will do nothing for our country. There is so much that people don'tknow about his upbringing in the Muslim world. His stepfather was a radical Muslim and the ranting of his minister against the white America, you can't convince me that some of that didn't rub off on him. "No, I want a president that will salute our flag, and put their hand on the Bible when they take the oath of office."
Here are some other direct quotes from voters, as recounted by campaign volunteers.
I'll never vote for a black person.
Hang that darky from a tree.
White people look out for white people, and black people look out for black people.
He's a half-breed and he's a Muslim. How can you trust that?
How discouraging that, 150 years after the Emancipation Proclamation and forty years after the death of Martin Luther King Jr., there would still be such ignorance, hatred and racism in this country. It's hard to believe, yet there it is.
Furthermore, I never thought I would see a Democratic candidate so willing to use racism to her advantage, and to fuel it with her rhetoric as well as her silence. (What she may not have considered, but ought to, is that some of these anti-Obama voters who say they support her may be only doing so because she is the white candidate. If Obama were white, many of her current male supporters would probably not vote for her because she is female. Racism and sexism go hand in hand, and while Obama is today's victim of discrimination, she could just as easily be tomorrow's.)
When Hillary Clinton criticizes Obama for staying in his church, she is not just questioning his judgment, she is reminding voters of his angry "black" pastor. When she speaks of her supporters being hard working white voters, she is sending a covert message to her supporters that the other guy is not one of them. When her husband dismisses Obama's win in South Carolina by saying "Jesse Jackson won here twice," he is really saying "Well the other black guy won here too, so it's no big deal." When Hillary tells voters of West Virginia to "send them a message," she is channeling segregationist presidential candidate George Wallace, who said the same thing. And when she remains silent in the face of false rumors spread by her campaign and Obama's opponents about who he is and what he stands for, she is using racism to her benefit.
Hillary Clinton is not a racist, but she is an opportunist and an enabler. The spouse or friend who buys the booze for the alcoholic, makes excuses for him, and covertly gives him excuses to drink, is not an alcoholic, but he or she can do just as much damage in enabling the drinker to go on drinking. That is what Hillary did in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana and now West Virginia.
So today, I am sending Hillary a message:
Hillary, you are enabling this racism. You are encouraging it. No amount of good intentions or desire to carry the dreams of American women to Washington can possibly excuse your complicity in this travesty. How would you feel if one of those young campaign workers was killed either intentionally or unintentionally as a result of the racism you have enabled, and even manipulated for your own benefit? And even if no one dies, how willing are you to look the other way when racial epithets are hurled, buildings vandalized and doors slammed in the faces of young people, people even younger than your daughter, just because of the color of your opponent's skin?
Is your victory worth this? Does this make you proud? Are you this ambitious, this cynical?
You are not going to win, and at this point your only reason for dishing out false hope to your supporters may be to continue to take in contributions so you can pay off your campaign debt. But is money more important than uniting the country, more important than using this grand opportunity when you are still on the national stage to help the country move beyond its tarnished history?
You could do something important to help people overcome their racism right now. You could stop with the coded language. You could set an example for them by embracing the candidacy of Barack Obama.
You could give a grand concession speech in which you address the issues of sexism and racism and beg your supporters not to fall for the rumors and innuendos about your opponent, and ask them to rise above the legacy of slavery and segregation and Jim Crow and join with all of their fellow Americans, of every race and creed, to vote for a man you know to be a good and decent American, someone more than qualified to be President of the United States.
You have a once in a lifetime opportunity now to help your fellow Americans overcome their fear and ignorance.
But to use the coded words of George Wallace to your supporters in West Virginia?
That is simply inexcusable.
Monday, May 12, 2008
Things Younger than McCain
Courtesy of my son Matt, who lives in Seattle, comes this recommended site.
Who knew?
Remember how Hillary Clinton, the media and the Republicans all wanted to target Obama as being elitist, someone who actually knew what ARUGULA is?
Well it turns our Arugula is one of several cruciferous vegetables, known to fight cancer.
Maybe instead of trashing candidates for being out of touch with "ordinary Americans" who apparently prefer Big Macs to healthy food, we could keep our mouths shut, learn something, and live longer.
Well it turns our Arugula is one of several cruciferous vegetables, known to fight cancer.
Maybe instead of trashing candidates for being out of touch with "ordinary Americans" who apparently prefer Big Macs to healthy food, we could keep our mouths shut, learn something, and live longer.
Hillary for Vice President - in 2012
Now that the media has declared victory for Obama in the presidential primary, and large numbers of superdelegates are announcing their support for the Illinois Senator, talk turns to the choice of a vice presidential running mate.
There is a movement underway to pressure Obama into choosing Hillary, to make what some consider an unbeatable ticket, a "dream ticket."
The positives are obvious. Hillary is popular with women and senior citizens, and having her on the ticket might make blue collar voters, who otherwise would reject Obama because he is young, or inexperienced, or African American, change their minds and vote Democratic.
But the negatives are just as obvious. Hillary does not compliment the change message Obama brings and she has said many negative things about her rival that would be difficult to erase. She also insists he cannot win, and some think she even wants him to lose. Furthermore, the baggage Hillary Clinton brings could hurt Obama more than help him. The Republicans are prepared to run against Hillary, and having her on the ticket, even in second place, would give them the opportunity they crave. Finally, even though the American people are wanting a change election, there may be only so much change they can tolerate. It is asking a lot of the people to vote for a non-traditional candidate, a candidate who looks different from any president in the past. To put two non-traditional candidates on the ballot may be asking too much of a stretch from the people.
There is a rumor out in medialand that Michelle Obama has put the kibosh on a Hillary Clinton candidacy and whether or not that is true, it is more true that the real person who would probably sink the chances of Hillary Clinton being on the ticket is Bill Clinton.
Can anyone really imagine what a nightmare it would be for a President Obama to constantly have to contend with Bill Clinton running around the country shooting his mouth off? He has proven himself to be a loose cannon in this campaign, one who says things that are inappropriate and damaging. Why would that change after his wife becomes vice president, especially if he still harbors the belief that his wife should have been president? Obama doesn't need an arrogant former president whispering in the ear of his vice president, and possibly undermining Obama's policies and/or competing for the spotlight.
Besides wanting to choose someone who complements his change message, Obama needs a vice presidential candidate, preferably a Hillary surrogate, who will help him win a big state he needs: Ed Rendell, Ted Strickland, Jim Webb, or Evan Bayh, for instance who could help him win Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, or Indiana. There are other calculations, of course, and ultimately I trust that Obama will pick wisely. I do not think he will nor should choose Hillary Clinton - at least not for the 2008 election.
However, if Obama wins in 2008, has a great four years, which I trust he will, and proves himself to the American people so that his re-election is not in doubt, I think he could change vice presidential candidates and ask Hillary Clinton to run with him in 2012. By then, if she has worked well with him from her position in the Senate, she might not be perceived by Obama supporters as the aggressive, divisive candidate they see now.
It is not without precedent that a president chooses a different vice presidential candidate for his second term. FDR chose a different vice president each term and it seems to have worked out well for him.
With Obama, it would mean choosing a vice presidential candidate who would be willing to only serve one term, someone who had no real aspirations to the presidency, and who would know they would be asked to step aside in 2012. Because for this to help Obama, he would have to make it known to Hillary in this election season that he was planning to do this. This could be the motivation for Hillary to support him enthusiastically in the fall.
But what would be in it for Hillary? Three things. Th first two relate assume the scenario of an Obama victory. The third becomes operative with a possible Obama loss. In this sense, whether Obama wins or loses, Hillary can win.
First, if she became vice president in 2012, with a very popular president, she would be in a great position to run for the presidency in 2016. Yes, she would be 68, but that is still younger than John McCain is now. Second, she would be making history as the first female vice president, and then possibly use that as a springboard to become the first female president. I believe the public might be much more willing to accept a diverse ticket in four years than it is today.
Finally, if she is willing to sit out this election as a vice presidential candidate, but still campaign vigorously for Obama, and Obama loses anyway, she is not part of a losing team and can come back in 2012 to run for the presidency again. (This scenario is not helpful to her, however, if she either doesn't campaign for Obama, or campaigns in such a lukewarm way, perhaps even "slipping up" and saying negative things about him, that Obama's supporters and the party may not give her another chance.)
So that's my idea. Choose a more traditional vice presidential running mate now, one who would be willing to step aside in four years, and promise Clinton the nomination in four years if she works vigorously for an Obama campaign in 2008, and helps him enact his agenda once he is in the White House.
There is a movement underway to pressure Obama into choosing Hillary, to make what some consider an unbeatable ticket, a "dream ticket."
The positives are obvious. Hillary is popular with women and senior citizens, and having her on the ticket might make blue collar voters, who otherwise would reject Obama because he is young, or inexperienced, or African American, change their minds and vote Democratic.
But the negatives are just as obvious. Hillary does not compliment the change message Obama brings and she has said many negative things about her rival that would be difficult to erase. She also insists he cannot win, and some think she even wants him to lose. Furthermore, the baggage Hillary Clinton brings could hurt Obama more than help him. The Republicans are prepared to run against Hillary, and having her on the ticket, even in second place, would give them the opportunity they crave. Finally, even though the American people are wanting a change election, there may be only so much change they can tolerate. It is asking a lot of the people to vote for a non-traditional candidate, a candidate who looks different from any president in the past. To put two non-traditional candidates on the ballot may be asking too much of a stretch from the people.
There is a rumor out in medialand that Michelle Obama has put the kibosh on a Hillary Clinton candidacy and whether or not that is true, it is more true that the real person who would probably sink the chances of Hillary Clinton being on the ticket is Bill Clinton.
Can anyone really imagine what a nightmare it would be for a President Obama to constantly have to contend with Bill Clinton running around the country shooting his mouth off? He has proven himself to be a loose cannon in this campaign, one who says things that are inappropriate and damaging. Why would that change after his wife becomes vice president, especially if he still harbors the belief that his wife should have been president? Obama doesn't need an arrogant former president whispering in the ear of his vice president, and possibly undermining Obama's policies and/or competing for the spotlight.
Besides wanting to choose someone who complements his change message, Obama needs a vice presidential candidate, preferably a Hillary surrogate, who will help him win a big state he needs: Ed Rendell, Ted Strickland, Jim Webb, or Evan Bayh, for instance who could help him win Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, or Indiana. There are other calculations, of course, and ultimately I trust that Obama will pick wisely. I do not think he will nor should choose Hillary Clinton - at least not for the 2008 election.
However, if Obama wins in 2008, has a great four years, which I trust he will, and proves himself to the American people so that his re-election is not in doubt, I think he could change vice presidential candidates and ask Hillary Clinton to run with him in 2012. By then, if she has worked well with him from her position in the Senate, she might not be perceived by Obama supporters as the aggressive, divisive candidate they see now.
It is not without precedent that a president chooses a different vice presidential candidate for his second term. FDR chose a different vice president each term and it seems to have worked out well for him.
With Obama, it would mean choosing a vice presidential candidate who would be willing to only serve one term, someone who had no real aspirations to the presidency, and who would know they would be asked to step aside in 2012. Because for this to help Obama, he would have to make it known to Hillary in this election season that he was planning to do this. This could be the motivation for Hillary to support him enthusiastically in the fall.
But what would be in it for Hillary? Three things. Th first two relate assume the scenario of an Obama victory. The third becomes operative with a possible Obama loss. In this sense, whether Obama wins or loses, Hillary can win.
First, if she became vice president in 2012, with a very popular president, she would be in a great position to run for the presidency in 2016. Yes, she would be 68, but that is still younger than John McCain is now. Second, she would be making history as the first female vice president, and then possibly use that as a springboard to become the first female president. I believe the public might be much more willing to accept a diverse ticket in four years than it is today.
Finally, if she is willing to sit out this election as a vice presidential candidate, but still campaign vigorously for Obama, and Obama loses anyway, she is not part of a losing team and can come back in 2012 to run for the presidency again. (This scenario is not helpful to her, however, if she either doesn't campaign for Obama, or campaigns in such a lukewarm way, perhaps even "slipping up" and saying negative things about him, that Obama's supporters and the party may not give her another chance.)
So that's my idea. Choose a more traditional vice presidential running mate now, one who would be willing to step aside in four years, and promise Clinton the nomination in four years if she works vigorously for an Obama campaign in 2008, and helps him enact his agenda once he is in the White House.
Saturday, May 10, 2008
Molly Ivins on Hillary Clinton
Molly Ivins is one of my heroes. Before her premature death in January 2007, she wrote and spoke the truth every day of her life. Molly was a feminist, but she was no Hillary Clinton fan, because to Molly, there was something more important than electing a female president, and that was electing an honorable female president.
In January, 2006, one year before her death, Molly said this:
Read the entire article. It's worth it.
In January, 2006, one year before her death, Molly said this:
I'd like to make it clear to the people who run the Democratic Party that I will not support Hillary Clinton for president.
Enough. Enough triangulation, calculation and equivocation. Enough clever straddling, enough not offending anyone. This is not a Dick Morris election. Sen. Clinton is apparently incapable of taking a clear stand on the war in Iraq, and that alone is enough to disqualify her. Her failure to speak out on Terri Schiavo, not to mention that gross pandering on flag-burning, are just contemptible little dodges.
Read the entire article. It's worth it.
Palace intrigue
Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan likens the Democratic nomination process to the election of the Pope and says party elders should be sending up the white smoke and shouting "habemus nominatum" ("we have a nominee") so that we can end the primary season.
Hillary Clinton may have thought she was the Democratic heir apparent, just as many Cardinals wake up every day thinking they will be the next Pope, but it doesn't always work out that way, as all but one Cardinal finds out each papal election.
It is true, I think, that Hillary Clinton thought she was "entitled" (as in deserving the Title) to the presidential nomination, perhaps because she endured so much as the First Lady, perhaps because she worked so hard in the Senate, perhaps because she is a woman. Who knows? But, after knocking out all of her rivals, one young opponent stands in her way.
Hillary Clinton treats Barack Obama as the illegitimate pretender to her throne, even after it is apparent to everyone except her that he will be the Democratic nominee. And Democrats have all kinds of conspiracy theories to explain why she won't concede.
Some think she wants to cripple Obama so that McCain will defeat him and she can come back in 2012 and triumph over both of them.
Some think her supporters have dug up some disqualifying dirt on her rival which she will release after she has won a few more contests and force all the superdelegates to seize the crown from Obama and give it to her.
Others think she is trying to win big in these next two weeks to prove to Obama that he needs her as his second in command, so that her supporters don't get peeled away by McCain.
David Gergen, speaking on CNN, said if Obama chose her as his V.P., he would need to hire a food taster.
If only Shakespeare were alive today....
Hillary Clinton may have thought she was the Democratic heir apparent, just as many Cardinals wake up every day thinking they will be the next Pope, but it doesn't always work out that way, as all but one Cardinal finds out each papal election.
It is true, I think, that Hillary Clinton thought she was "entitled" (as in deserving the Title) to the presidential nomination, perhaps because she endured so much as the First Lady, perhaps because she worked so hard in the Senate, perhaps because she is a woman. Who knows? But, after knocking out all of her rivals, one young opponent stands in her way.
Hillary Clinton treats Barack Obama as the illegitimate pretender to her throne, even after it is apparent to everyone except her that he will be the Democratic nominee. And Democrats have all kinds of conspiracy theories to explain why she won't concede.
Some think she wants to cripple Obama so that McCain will defeat him and she can come back in 2012 and triumph over both of them.
Some think her supporters have dug up some disqualifying dirt on her rival which she will release after she has won a few more contests and force all the superdelegates to seize the crown from Obama and give it to her.
Others think she is trying to win big in these next two weeks to prove to Obama that he needs her as his second in command, so that her supporters don't get peeled away by McCain.
David Gergen, speaking on CNN, said if Obama chose her as his V.P., he would need to hire a food taster.
If only Shakespeare were alive today....
Friday, May 9, 2008
McCain: Justification for going negative
McCain says he will not engage in negative campaigning.
Then he brings up Jeremiah Wright.
When reporters challenge him on why he did this when he said he wasn't going to go negative, he basically said Obama had given him permission to do so when Obama said on FOX News that he understood his relationship with his pastor was relevant.
Then McCain tells reporters that Hamas endorses Obama and that the endorsement is relevant.
Then Cindy McCain tells Ann Curry that her husband will not engage in negative campaigning.
Then McCain brings up Hamas again and Brian Williams asks Obama about it.
Obama, rightfully indignant that McCain would bring up this ridiculous assertion with its highly inflammatory innuendo, especially after insisting he will run a positive campaign, says perhaps McCain has "lost his bearings" in this race.
The McCain campaign sends out a letter of outrage, saying that Obama is playing the "age card."
I think I get it.
Cindy and John will continue to say they will not go negative, and then the McCain campaign will find some excuse for why they have to - Obama gave them permission, or he is using the age card and they simply have to defend themselves.
This will be a negative campaign all right, at least from the Republicans. They don't know how to win any other way and they know it. So there will be many letters like this one, jumping on innocent comments made by Obama, twisting them into something they are not so that McCain will be forgiven for flip-flopping on his promise, just as he has flip-flopped on taxes, on the "agents of intolerance" he now embraces, and on his feelings about George W. Bush.
And by the end of the campaign you can bet they will be playing the race card, especially if it is all they have left.
Then he brings up Jeremiah Wright.
When reporters challenge him on why he did this when he said he wasn't going to go negative, he basically said Obama had given him permission to do so when Obama said on FOX News that he understood his relationship with his pastor was relevant.
Then McCain tells reporters that Hamas endorses Obama and that the endorsement is relevant.
Then Cindy McCain tells Ann Curry that her husband will not engage in negative campaigning.
Then McCain brings up Hamas again and Brian Williams asks Obama about it.
Obama, rightfully indignant that McCain would bring up this ridiculous assertion with its highly inflammatory innuendo, especially after insisting he will run a positive campaign, says perhaps McCain has "lost his bearings" in this race.
The McCain campaign sends out a letter of outrage, saying that Obama is playing the "age card."
I think I get it.
Cindy and John will continue to say they will not go negative, and then the McCain campaign will find some excuse for why they have to - Obama gave them permission, or he is using the age card and they simply have to defend themselves.
This will be a negative campaign all right, at least from the Republicans. They don't know how to win any other way and they know it. So there will be many letters like this one, jumping on innocent comments made by Obama, twisting them into something they are not so that McCain will be forgiven for flip-flopping on his promise, just as he has flip-flopped on taxes, on the "agents of intolerance" he now embraces, and on his feelings about George W. Bush.
And by the end of the campaign you can bet they will be playing the race card, especially if it is all they have left.
Poor, pitiful Hillary
Every morning I wake up hoping to be able to focus on something else - like how we are going to defeat McCain in November, what an Obama administration will look like, how amazing it will be to see him take the oath of office, and what kind of for-the-ages type of Inaugural Address he will give.
But nearly every day for the past few weeks, even months, I have woken up each morning to hear something on the news that brings me back to this unending nominating process in the Democratic Party. The media wants it to go on, the Republicans want it to go on, Hillary supporters want it to go on, and apparently the superdelegates want it to go on, because they alone could end it now if they wanted to, or had (to use James Carville's phrase) the cajones to do so.
If Hillary keeps throwing around her philosophy that only she can get white support this Fall, if she and her husband keep making this about race, she is going to do irreparable harm to the fragile coalition that is the Democratic Party.
And the only reason she is doing it is because she believes she and her husband ARE the Democratic Party. It is THEIR party; it belongs to them. This is obviously their attitude. No other candidate would stay in the race when it was obvious there was no way they could win except by overturning the will of the people. No one else would do that to the party, because no other candidate believes they own the party. But the Clintons do.
This narcissistic couple, regardless of how Hillary says she cares about YOU, only care about themselves. If the majority of the people in the Democratic Party will not see it their way, well tough patooties. They ARE the Democratic Party and no one or nothing else counts: not the majority of states and voters who have chosen Obama, not the issue of racial unity, not the importance of pulling the party together in order to win in November.
It reminds me a lot of how Bill Clinton acted during the entire Monica mess. First he lied to the people, firmly and shamelessly, on television, with his finger pointed directly at the camera. Then when he finally had to admit what he had done, instead of resigning for the good of the country and the party, turning the presidency over to Al Gore, who would have been a great president and would have been poised to win in 2000, he pressed on and forced the country to go through the spectacle of impeachment and exposure to his sexual immorality. And that cost the Democratic Party the election in 2000 and has given us an eight year nightmare.
Bill Clinton's refusal to depart with some dignity and selflessness meant the country was distracted from all the other important issues (most importantly doing someting about al Qaeda) for over a year. His victory rally on the White House lawn after he was impeached is something like the victory lap Hillary is taking through the remaining primary states even though she has lost. Just as Bill refused to see reality and resign after he was impeached, Hillary is refusing to concede after she has all but lost the nomination. And not only is she continuing to compete in this hopeless cause, she is fueling racial animosity as she is campaigning.
This is unconscionable, yet the media is not attacking her for it as they attacked Obama for his "bitter" comments, or for the comments of his pastor. It is as if the media also believe the Clintons own the Democratic Party and are afraid to cross them. Why is everyone so afraid of Bill and Hillary Clinton? I understand what they can do to Barack, and to the Democratic Party, because they are doing it. But what can they possibly do to the media?
Where's the fairness here? Where's the honesty? Why is everyone in the media kowtowing to Clinton, saying she needs "time" to resign in her own way, in her own time? Why must her ego be so massaged? No one thought it important to massage Obama's ego when they were talking non-stop about his pastor problem. Is Hillary that fragile, or that vindictive?
I'd really like to know.
But nearly every day for the past few weeks, even months, I have woken up each morning to hear something on the news that brings me back to this unending nominating process in the Democratic Party. The media wants it to go on, the Republicans want it to go on, Hillary supporters want it to go on, and apparently the superdelegates want it to go on, because they alone could end it now if they wanted to, or had (to use James Carville's phrase) the cajones to do so.
If Hillary keeps throwing around her philosophy that only she can get white support this Fall, if she and her husband keep making this about race, she is going to do irreparable harm to the fragile coalition that is the Democratic Party.
And the only reason she is doing it is because she believes she and her husband ARE the Democratic Party. It is THEIR party; it belongs to them. This is obviously their attitude. No other candidate would stay in the race when it was obvious there was no way they could win except by overturning the will of the people. No one else would do that to the party, because no other candidate believes they own the party. But the Clintons do.
This narcissistic couple, regardless of how Hillary says she cares about YOU, only care about themselves. If the majority of the people in the Democratic Party will not see it their way, well tough patooties. They ARE the Democratic Party and no one or nothing else counts: not the majority of states and voters who have chosen Obama, not the issue of racial unity, not the importance of pulling the party together in order to win in November.
It reminds me a lot of how Bill Clinton acted during the entire Monica mess. First he lied to the people, firmly and shamelessly, on television, with his finger pointed directly at the camera. Then when he finally had to admit what he had done, instead of resigning for the good of the country and the party, turning the presidency over to Al Gore, who would have been a great president and would have been poised to win in 2000, he pressed on and forced the country to go through the spectacle of impeachment and exposure to his sexual immorality. And that cost the Democratic Party the election in 2000 and has given us an eight year nightmare.
Bill Clinton's refusal to depart with some dignity and selflessness meant the country was distracted from all the other important issues (most importantly doing someting about al Qaeda) for over a year. His victory rally on the White House lawn after he was impeached is something like the victory lap Hillary is taking through the remaining primary states even though she has lost. Just as Bill refused to see reality and resign after he was impeached, Hillary is refusing to concede after she has all but lost the nomination. And not only is she continuing to compete in this hopeless cause, she is fueling racial animosity as she is campaigning.
This is unconscionable, yet the media is not attacking her for it as they attacked Obama for his "bitter" comments, or for the comments of his pastor. It is as if the media also believe the Clintons own the Democratic Party and are afraid to cross them. Why is everyone so afraid of Bill and Hillary Clinton? I understand what they can do to Barack, and to the Democratic Party, because they are doing it. But what can they possibly do to the media?
Where's the fairness here? Where's the honesty? Why is everyone in the media kowtowing to Clinton, saying she needs "time" to resign in her own way, in her own time? Why must her ego be so massaged? No one thought it important to massage Obama's ego when they were talking non-stop about his pastor problem. Is Hillary that fragile, or that vindictive?
I'd really like to know.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
What will Hillary do now?
From a USA Today Interview conducted after Tuesday's "game changer."
A lot of people in the press and politics have been trying to be gracious to Clinton as she comes to the realization that she will not be the Democratic nominee for president. Even on Daily Kos, a progressive web community of mostly die-hard Obama supporters, there were diaries yesterday asking everyone to be gracious to Hillary and stop the criticism.
Pundits are insisting she will not attack Obama anymore and everyone should just let her continue to run so as not to alienate her female supporters, and give her time to find a dignified way to leave the race and begin supporting Obama.
This interview with USA Today indicates to me she has no intention of accepting the inevitable and she is going to continue to talk about race and insist he will not get the support of white voters.
Someone needs to take this woman aside and tell her she is supposed to be a member of the Democratic - not Republican - Party. Someone needs to tell her this doesn't help her. She wants it to hurt Obama, but it is only hurting her. To see a former First Lady and a sitting Senator from the Democratic Party saying white people will not vote for her opponent because he is black is simply unconscionable.
Barack Obama has never once said that men will not vote for Hillary because she is a woman or that black people will not vote for her because she is white.
So what is Hillary Clinton saying and why is she saying it? And what are the consequences of her words?
Hillary Clinton is saying that there is a certain segment of white America that is still uneducated, unenlightened, and steeped in prejudice against some people because of the color of their skin. Regardless of how true that may be, to say that these people will never vote for Obama and therefore should vote for her is a purely political ploy. She is saying that in order to win we should give in to people who are ignorant. She is using the prejudices of people to her own advantage, which is exactly what Republicans have done for decades. What she will never acknowledge is how complicit she and her husband and her campaign are in turning those people against Obama.
By using the Jeremiah Wright flap, by bringing up Louis Farrakhan twice in debates, by calling Obama an elitist, she has played right into the stereotypes that many white people hold about blacks - that they are dangerous and uppity people who don't know their place. These were absolutely horrible things for Hillary to do and say, and apparently she is not going to stop.
I have more confidence in the American people and I know that Barack Obama can win the votes of both whites and blacks. Here's why:
Large numbers of white citizens are proud to vote for Obama. Millions have already voted for him.
When voters get to see and hear Obama up close, they like him and find him to be inspirational.
The young people of America, who are voting in larger numbers than ever before, are mainly voting for Obama.
He's already won the popular vote in the primaries.
Now it's true that Democrats (even white Democrats) have always had trouble with the white working class vote, but it remains to be seen if Obama's race will turn more of them away than usual. And if his race is an issue with some, then this is where Hillary and Bill could really be of service to the Democrats, including the Democratic women who are in her camp.
This could be a real educational opportunity for people in America who have grown up with racism and don't understand how to see people in any other way than their grandparents did. If Hillary and Bill campaigned beside Obama, talked to people about race in ways no one has talked to them before, showed them that Obama really was one of them, they could do enormous good not just for the Democratic cause, but for the cause of unity in this country.
If Hillary held meetings with groups of female supporters and assured them that Obama would not let women down, would appoint the right kind of justices to the supreme court, and would sign bills that promoted the causes of women, she could win them over to him. Of course, Obama needs to do more of this as well.
If Hillary could just accept defeat graciously, and stop insisting that whites will not vote for Obama, she could help transform this country.
This nation has seen many great leaders who went down to defeat only to go on and do great things in some other way. Look at how much good Jimmy Carter did in the international community after he was defeated. Look at how John and Elizabeth Edwards are championing the causes of poverty and health care.
Hillary Clinton could do the same thing. Whether or not America finally grows up and overcomes its horrible history of black vs. white could largely rest in her hands. Obama is doing all he can, but the help of his formidable rival, a powerful white woman, could make all the difference.
Now is her biggest test. Will she be gracious and help Obama, the Democratic Party, and the country by throwing her support to him, educating the American people and moving them past their prejudices, or will her ambition and narcissism hurt them all?
Hillary Rodham Clinton vowed Wednesday to continue her quest for the Democratic nomination, arguing she would be the stronger nominee because she appeals to a wider coalition of voters — including whites who have not supported Barack Obama in recent contests.
"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she said in an interview with USA TODAY. As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article "that found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."
"There's a pattern emerging here," she said.
A lot of people in the press and politics have been trying to be gracious to Clinton as she comes to the realization that she will not be the Democratic nominee for president. Even on Daily Kos, a progressive web community of mostly die-hard Obama supporters, there were diaries yesterday asking everyone to be gracious to Hillary and stop the criticism.
Pundits are insisting she will not attack Obama anymore and everyone should just let her continue to run so as not to alienate her female supporters, and give her time to find a dignified way to leave the race and begin supporting Obama.
This interview with USA Today indicates to me she has no intention of accepting the inevitable and she is going to continue to talk about race and insist he will not get the support of white voters.
Someone needs to take this woman aside and tell her she is supposed to be a member of the Democratic - not Republican - Party. Someone needs to tell her this doesn't help her. She wants it to hurt Obama, but it is only hurting her. To see a former First Lady and a sitting Senator from the Democratic Party saying white people will not vote for her opponent because he is black is simply unconscionable.
Barack Obama has never once said that men will not vote for Hillary because she is a woman or that black people will not vote for her because she is white.
So what is Hillary Clinton saying and why is she saying it? And what are the consequences of her words?
Hillary Clinton is saying that there is a certain segment of white America that is still uneducated, unenlightened, and steeped in prejudice against some people because of the color of their skin. Regardless of how true that may be, to say that these people will never vote for Obama and therefore should vote for her is a purely political ploy. She is saying that in order to win we should give in to people who are ignorant. She is using the prejudices of people to her own advantage, which is exactly what Republicans have done for decades. What she will never acknowledge is how complicit she and her husband and her campaign are in turning those people against Obama.
By using the Jeremiah Wright flap, by bringing up Louis Farrakhan twice in debates, by calling Obama an elitist, she has played right into the stereotypes that many white people hold about blacks - that they are dangerous and uppity people who don't know their place. These were absolutely horrible things for Hillary to do and say, and apparently she is not going to stop.
I have more confidence in the American people and I know that Barack Obama can win the votes of both whites and blacks. Here's why:
Large numbers of white citizens are proud to vote for Obama. Millions have already voted for him.
When voters get to see and hear Obama up close, they like him and find him to be inspirational.
The young people of America, who are voting in larger numbers than ever before, are mainly voting for Obama.
He's already won the popular vote in the primaries.
Now it's true that Democrats (even white Democrats) have always had trouble with the white working class vote, but it remains to be seen if Obama's race will turn more of them away than usual. And if his race is an issue with some, then this is where Hillary and Bill could really be of service to the Democrats, including the Democratic women who are in her camp.
This could be a real educational opportunity for people in America who have grown up with racism and don't understand how to see people in any other way than their grandparents did. If Hillary and Bill campaigned beside Obama, talked to people about race in ways no one has talked to them before, showed them that Obama really was one of them, they could do enormous good not just for the Democratic cause, but for the cause of unity in this country.
If Hillary held meetings with groups of female supporters and assured them that Obama would not let women down, would appoint the right kind of justices to the supreme court, and would sign bills that promoted the causes of women, she could win them over to him. Of course, Obama needs to do more of this as well.
If Hillary could just accept defeat graciously, and stop insisting that whites will not vote for Obama, she could help transform this country.
This nation has seen many great leaders who went down to defeat only to go on and do great things in some other way. Look at how much good Jimmy Carter did in the international community after he was defeated. Look at how John and Elizabeth Edwards are championing the causes of poverty and health care.
Hillary Clinton could do the same thing. Whether or not America finally grows up and overcomes its horrible history of black vs. white could largely rest in her hands. Obama is doing all he can, but the help of his formidable rival, a powerful white woman, could make all the difference.
Now is her biggest test. Will she be gracious and help Obama, the Democratic Party, and the country by throwing her support to him, educating the American people and moving them past their prejudices, or will her ambition and narcissism hurt them all?
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Hillary Clinton's dignity
I give!
I don't understand what she is doing.
Why is she still campaigning and why are CNN and MSNBC still covering her speeches live?
Barack trounced her last night, removed all possibility of her passing him in popular vote or pledged delegates and yet she still goes on.
Her campaign is sending out this ridiculous talking point that she improved on her percentage of the white vote in North Carolina so that makes it a victory for her. Again with the racial remarks.
I can't decide if she is pathetic, or comedic, or just hasn't used all the different pantsuits she owns.
She has become the Democratic Mike Huckabee, only without the charm and the divinity degree.
What is up with her?
I said in an earlier post that some people don't know how to lose, and Hillary is apparently one of them. She doesn't know how to lose and so she will never admit she has lost. Even when Barack gives his acceptance speech in Denver, will she have staff members warning delegates that he is unelectable?
At this point, she looks like a stalker who can't take "no" for an answer and so continues to call his girlfriend, and drive by her house, and send her unwanted love letters.
When my children were teenagers and suffered a broken heart, I used to tell them that it wasn't the end of the world, that life would go on, and that whatever else they did in response to a break-up, it was important to preserve their dignity.
Hillary Clinton is close to losing her dignity and I wonder if she never learned the lesson as a teenager. Perhaps after being publicly humiliated by a philandering husband when she was First Lady, she has no more dignity.
Is there no mother figure in this country, powerful and wise enough to help Hillary Clinton preserve her dignity?
How long must we be subjected to this sad, sad display of desperation?
I don't understand what she is doing.
Why is she still campaigning and why are CNN and MSNBC still covering her speeches live?
Barack trounced her last night, removed all possibility of her passing him in popular vote or pledged delegates and yet she still goes on.
Her campaign is sending out this ridiculous talking point that she improved on her percentage of the white vote in North Carolina so that makes it a victory for her. Again with the racial remarks.
I can't decide if she is pathetic, or comedic, or just hasn't used all the different pantsuits she owns.
She has become the Democratic Mike Huckabee, only without the charm and the divinity degree.
What is up with her?
I said in an earlier post that some people don't know how to lose, and Hillary is apparently one of them. She doesn't know how to lose and so she will never admit she has lost. Even when Barack gives his acceptance speech in Denver, will she have staff members warning delegates that he is unelectable?
At this point, she looks like a stalker who can't take "no" for an answer and so continues to call his girlfriend, and drive by her house, and send her unwanted love letters.
When my children were teenagers and suffered a broken heart, I used to tell them that it wasn't the end of the world, that life would go on, and that whatever else they did in response to a break-up, it was important to preserve their dignity.
Hillary Clinton is close to losing her dignity and I wonder if she never learned the lesson as a teenager. Perhaps after being publicly humiliated by a philandering husband when she was First Lady, she has no more dignity.
Is there no mother figure in this country, powerful and wise enough to help Hillary Clinton preserve her dignity?
How long must we be subjected to this sad, sad display of desperation?
Passing the torch
How long is the Democratic Party going to continue to pander to "Reagan Democrats?"
For the past few weeks, and continuing today after Hillary Clinton's disastrous loss in North Carolina and near loss in Indiana, the Clinton camp has been using the argument to super delegates that "Obama can't win the white working class vote."
So I want to say a few things about that type of thinking.
First, Obama won plenty of white working class votes. Hillary won more, but he did win some of them. He even won some Reagan Republicans and Reagan Independents.
Second, if we want to play a game of division, it could be said that Hillary can't win the African American vote. She lost it by a much larger margin than Obama lost the white working class vote. The Clintons maintain there are more white working class votes than black votes, and that may be true, but here is another reality:
Some of those white working class voters will definitely vote for Obama when he runs against McCain. When the choice was between two Democrats, many white working class voters chose Hillary over Obama. There are probably many possible reasons for that. One was the great snow job Hillary pulled by painting herself as a regular gal, and calling Obama an elitist. Another was probably racism, which appears to be higher in the working class than in the upper classes.
Those who voted for class reasons will vote for Obama in the Fall because McCain and the Republicans are not good for the working class and they finally know it. And as time goes by, and the people get to know Obama and his history better, the "elitist" label wil disappear.
Those who voted against Obama because of race will probably not be won over, but do we really want to choose Hillary as the nominee because we want to appeal to racists? Can't we use this election, instead, as a chance to help many Americans overcome racism? Bill and Hillary, who actually fueled racism with their primary strategy, could now be Obama's biggest allies in overcoming racism. If Bill and Hillary renounce racism, including that which reared its head in their campaign, they could do a great deal to help this country finally renounce the remnants of racism that remain in this country.
Third, with this election, we may be seeing the beginning of the end of the dominance of the white blue collar vote and the importance of Reagan Democrats to every election since, well, since Reagan. Soon Caucasians will be outnumbered in the electorate by Asians, African Americans, and Hispanics and those Reagan Democrats may simply not matter to electoral victory as much as they once did.
Barack Obama may not have won over a majority of Asians and Hispanics, but he is certainly capable of it. Most of those voters will choose Obama over McCain. And Obama definitely has over ninety percent of African Americans as his base. He also has the college educated voters, as Democrats usually do. The college educated voters have been frustrated for years that they could not get their message out to their fellow Americans about how Republicans and some Democrats have been screwing them over, manipulating their vote and making promises to them that they never keep. This election may finally change that.
And finally, what Obama has that Clinton didn't, and what will provide him a new metric for victory, is the youth vote, the vote of those who are members of the Post Boomer generations. And what is particularly hopeful, unique, and game changing about those generations is that they refuse to be stuck in categories so loved by the Boomers. They can't be so easily divided by class, gender, race, ethnicity or sexual orientation.
The post Boomer generations are incredibly tolerant. Obama's message of hope and unity resonates with them because they are already unified, and already children of the world.
My children, for instance, who are in their twenties and thirties, see nothing unusual about going to a wedding where two men or two women exchange vows. They all count gay individuals and gay couples among their friends. They don't see sexual orientation - or color or ethnicity or gender - when they choose friends.
All but one have been to Europe. One recently visited Cuba on an educational visa because he was invited by Cuban artists he met at art exhibits here in the U.S. The fact that Cuba is a communist country meant nothing to him. Another counts as one of his good friends a Muslim from Morocco. Another has a seven year old son whose best friends include a boy who is half French and half Iraqi, and a boy who is half English and half Japanese. My children and grandchildren don't divide the world up into categories, as Republicans do, and as Hillary, unfortunately, tried to do.
Division doesn't work with young Democrats, which is why now that Barack has all but clinched the nomination, I hope Hillary and her supporters join the unity march and give up their strategy of division. John Kennedy once said that the torch of governing had been passed to a new generation of Americans. Hillary and Bill Clinton came smack up against another torch passing, from the Boomers to the post-Boomers, and they did not see it. They need to see it now. John McCain will see it soon.
It has been a tough democratic primary fight, and those of us who supported Obama and became increasingly angry at Clinton did so mainly because we saw her as becoming too much like the Republicans who thrive on negativity and divisiveness. But should she give that up, she will redeem herself with us.
Many of the older women who supported Clinton (and older women were her base) did so because they have felt discriminated against in the past and desperately wanted a woman to be their champion. I understand that. But that fight, though not completely won, is largely in the past with the other Boomer causes. That is why her campaign ultimately did not succeed, and why Jeremiah Wright was ultimately rejected. They both wanted to continue the fights of the sixties and seventies, while the younger generations, including Obama's generation, have moved past those fights.
I fault Obama for one thing. He has not addressed the concerns of those women enough. He has never spoken to the concerns of these women because he sees his campaign as beyond that. But there are many women who I believe would come over to his side if he would at least address what they are thinking, what they have been through, the anger they still feel, and what they are hoping for. His late mother was of that generation, and her absence in his life may account for this hole in his strategy. But he needs to speak to more sixty and seventy year old women who can educate him. Then, Obama needs a speech to women, just as he needed a speech on race. I hope he gives one soon, or at least includes women's concerns in his acceptance speech in August and his Inaugural address in January, 2009.
After he does that, perhaps he can convince these women that Hillary wasn't the only one who can create a better world for them, their children, and their grandchildren. Barack and Michelle can do this - they can reach out to Hillary's supporters - women, working class whites, and Latinos - and Hillary can help them in the outreach if she really wants a Democrat to win this Fall. Already Barack's youthful supporters have begun a dialogue with their older Democratic cohorts (many of them have convinced their parents to support Obama) and are leading them into a better, more color blind, more gender blind, more united country, and then into a more international, more peaceful world.
Yes, they can! Yes, he can! Yes, we can!
For the past few weeks, and continuing today after Hillary Clinton's disastrous loss in North Carolina and near loss in Indiana, the Clinton camp has been using the argument to super delegates that "Obama can't win the white working class vote."
So I want to say a few things about that type of thinking.
First, Obama won plenty of white working class votes. Hillary won more, but he did win some of them. He even won some Reagan Republicans and Reagan Independents.
Second, if we want to play a game of division, it could be said that Hillary can't win the African American vote. She lost it by a much larger margin than Obama lost the white working class vote. The Clintons maintain there are more white working class votes than black votes, and that may be true, but here is another reality:
Some of those white working class voters will definitely vote for Obama when he runs against McCain. When the choice was between two Democrats, many white working class voters chose Hillary over Obama. There are probably many possible reasons for that. One was the great snow job Hillary pulled by painting herself as a regular gal, and calling Obama an elitist. Another was probably racism, which appears to be higher in the working class than in the upper classes.
Those who voted for class reasons will vote for Obama in the Fall because McCain and the Republicans are not good for the working class and they finally know it. And as time goes by, and the people get to know Obama and his history better, the "elitist" label wil disappear.
Those who voted against Obama because of race will probably not be won over, but do we really want to choose Hillary as the nominee because we want to appeal to racists? Can't we use this election, instead, as a chance to help many Americans overcome racism? Bill and Hillary, who actually fueled racism with their primary strategy, could now be Obama's biggest allies in overcoming racism. If Bill and Hillary renounce racism, including that which reared its head in their campaign, they could do a great deal to help this country finally renounce the remnants of racism that remain in this country.
Third, with this election, we may be seeing the beginning of the end of the dominance of the white blue collar vote and the importance of Reagan Democrats to every election since, well, since Reagan. Soon Caucasians will be outnumbered in the electorate by Asians, African Americans, and Hispanics and those Reagan Democrats may simply not matter to electoral victory as much as they once did.
Barack Obama may not have won over a majority of Asians and Hispanics, but he is certainly capable of it. Most of those voters will choose Obama over McCain. And Obama definitely has over ninety percent of African Americans as his base. He also has the college educated voters, as Democrats usually do. The college educated voters have been frustrated for years that they could not get their message out to their fellow Americans about how Republicans and some Democrats have been screwing them over, manipulating their vote and making promises to them that they never keep. This election may finally change that.
And finally, what Obama has that Clinton didn't, and what will provide him a new metric for victory, is the youth vote, the vote of those who are members of the Post Boomer generations. And what is particularly hopeful, unique, and game changing about those generations is that they refuse to be stuck in categories so loved by the Boomers. They can't be so easily divided by class, gender, race, ethnicity or sexual orientation.
The post Boomer generations are incredibly tolerant. Obama's message of hope and unity resonates with them because they are already unified, and already children of the world.
My children, for instance, who are in their twenties and thirties, see nothing unusual about going to a wedding where two men or two women exchange vows. They all count gay individuals and gay couples among their friends. They don't see sexual orientation - or color or ethnicity or gender - when they choose friends.
All but one have been to Europe. One recently visited Cuba on an educational visa because he was invited by Cuban artists he met at art exhibits here in the U.S. The fact that Cuba is a communist country meant nothing to him. Another counts as one of his good friends a Muslim from Morocco. Another has a seven year old son whose best friends include a boy who is half French and half Iraqi, and a boy who is half English and half Japanese. My children and grandchildren don't divide the world up into categories, as Republicans do, and as Hillary, unfortunately, tried to do.
Division doesn't work with young Democrats, which is why now that Barack has all but clinched the nomination, I hope Hillary and her supporters join the unity march and give up their strategy of division. John Kennedy once said that the torch of governing had been passed to a new generation of Americans. Hillary and Bill Clinton came smack up against another torch passing, from the Boomers to the post-Boomers, and they did not see it. They need to see it now. John McCain will see it soon.
It has been a tough democratic primary fight, and those of us who supported Obama and became increasingly angry at Clinton did so mainly because we saw her as becoming too much like the Republicans who thrive on negativity and divisiveness. But should she give that up, she will redeem herself with us.
Many of the older women who supported Clinton (and older women were her base) did so because they have felt discriminated against in the past and desperately wanted a woman to be their champion. I understand that. But that fight, though not completely won, is largely in the past with the other Boomer causes. That is why her campaign ultimately did not succeed, and why Jeremiah Wright was ultimately rejected. They both wanted to continue the fights of the sixties and seventies, while the younger generations, including Obama's generation, have moved past those fights.
I fault Obama for one thing. He has not addressed the concerns of those women enough. He has never spoken to the concerns of these women because he sees his campaign as beyond that. But there are many women who I believe would come over to his side if he would at least address what they are thinking, what they have been through, the anger they still feel, and what they are hoping for. His late mother was of that generation, and her absence in his life may account for this hole in his strategy. But he needs to speak to more sixty and seventy year old women who can educate him. Then, Obama needs a speech to women, just as he needed a speech on race. I hope he gives one soon, or at least includes women's concerns in his acceptance speech in August and his Inaugural address in January, 2009.
After he does that, perhaps he can convince these women that Hillary wasn't the only one who can create a better world for them, their children, and their grandchildren. Barack and Michelle can do this - they can reach out to Hillary's supporters - women, working class whites, and Latinos - and Hillary can help them in the outreach if she really wants a Democrat to win this Fall. Already Barack's youthful supporters have begun a dialogue with their older Democratic cohorts (many of them have convinced their parents to support Obama) and are leading them into a better, more color blind, more gender blind, more united country, and then into a more international, more peaceful world.
Yes, they can! Yes, he can! Yes, we can!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)