Tonight Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama debated in the Kodak Theatre in front of about a gazillion Hollywood stars.
After watching all of it, and a part of last night's Republican debate, I can say with conviction that:
Republicans look like the party of the past and Democrats look like the party of the future.
Republicans sound like the party of the past and Democrats sound like the party of the future.
Republican ideas have run their course and been found not up to the task of solving the nation's problems.
Democratic ideas are squarely addressing the nations's problems with innovative and grand ideas.
If the voters put another Republican in the White House come November, it will only be because they are brain dead.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
On the war
One thing I hope the CNN debate tonight spends some time on is how each of the remaining Democratic candidates felt about the war in Iraq in 2003, how they assess it now, and what each of them plans to do about it once they are in office.
Their presumed opponent, John McCain, has an unambiguous position: he will stay in Iraq indefinitely or for 100 years, whichever comes first.
So the Democratic nominee had better have a clear and precise position to contrast with McCain's.
The Democrats, in this election, must be the antiwar party. As sixty percent of Americans still want us out of Iraq, and nearly seventy percent now say beginning the war was wrong, there is a huge constituency out there waiting to vote for a real antiwar candidate.
Obama opposed the war from the beginning, and would begin removing troops immediately. Here's his position from his campaign website:
Hillary voted for the authorization to invade Iraq, has not directly admitted her vote was wrong, and says she would convene military leaders to discuss beginning withdrawal within sixty days. From her website:
It seems to me there's a lot more wiggle room in her plan, a lot more fuzzy language. Perhaps that's what is needed in a commander in chief. Perhaps we also want a commander in chief who can't admit a mistake. That's obviously what we have now.
Maybe Obama makes promises that he can't keep. Maybe that's his inexperience. On the other hand, at least he's direct and firm in what he says.
So tonight I'd really like to hear more from these candidates. I want them to give more substance to these brief statements, and I'd like to see Hillary pressed once again on her war vote and how she looks at it now.
If the Democrats don't have a presidential nominee who can be clear and firm in a debate with each other on their Iraq position, how on earth will they do it against McCain, who couldn't be more clear?
McCain's views may not be in sync with the majority of Americans, but most Republicans who didn't agree with him on the war still voted for him in Florida. They saw the clarity, confidence and strength he exudes on this issue.
Our candidates must show the voters that same clarity and confidence of belief.
Their presumed opponent, John McCain, has an unambiguous position: he will stay in Iraq indefinitely or for 100 years, whichever comes first.
So the Democratic nominee had better have a clear and precise position to contrast with McCain's.
The Democrats, in this election, must be the antiwar party. As sixty percent of Americans still want us out of Iraq, and nearly seventy percent now say beginning the war was wrong, there is a huge constituency out there waiting to vote for a real antiwar candidate.
Obama opposed the war from the beginning, and would begin removing troops immediately. Here's his position from his campaign website:
Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda.
Hillary voted for the authorization to invade Iraq, has not directly admitted her vote was wrong, and says she would convene military leaders to discuss beginning withdrawal within sixty days. From her website:
The most important part of Hillary's plan is the first: to end our military engagement in Iraq's civil war and immediately start bringing our troops home. As president, one of Hillary's first official actions would be to convene the Joint Chiefs of Staff, her Secretary of Defense, and her National Security Council. She would direct them to draw up a clear, viable plan to bring our troops home starting with the first 60 days of her Administration.
It seems to me there's a lot more wiggle room in her plan, a lot more fuzzy language. Perhaps that's what is needed in a commander in chief. Perhaps we also want a commander in chief who can't admit a mistake. That's obviously what we have now.
Maybe Obama makes promises that he can't keep. Maybe that's his inexperience. On the other hand, at least he's direct and firm in what he says.
So tonight I'd really like to hear more from these candidates. I want them to give more substance to these brief statements, and I'd like to see Hillary pressed once again on her war vote and how she looks at it now.
If the Democrats don't have a presidential nominee who can be clear and firm in a debate with each other on their Iraq position, how on earth will they do it against McCain, who couldn't be more clear?
McCain's views may not be in sync with the majority of Americans, but most Republicans who didn't agree with him on the war still voted for him in Florida. They saw the clarity, confidence and strength he exudes on this issue.
Our candidates must show the voters that same clarity and confidence of belief.
National Rorschach Test
Every national election teaches us something, not only about the candidates, but also about ourselves as voters and, sadly, about the weaknesses of modern democracy.
The 2000 election taught us that in an evenly divided electorate, a third party candidacy can enable the winner of the popular vote to be the loser. We also learned that a ruthless campaign manager/strategist can figure out how to "win" an election, even when his candidate loses the popular vote. And, of course, we learned that it is possible to steal an election if you are bold enough, if your brother is governor of a crucial state and can scrub the voting rolls, and if you have campaign staff thugs who are willing to pose as ordinary people demanding that a legal recount be stopped.
In 2004 we learned that fear, partly based a real threat, but stoked by lies and exaggerations, can determine the outcome of an election and that "independent" groups can spread lies about a candidate they oppose and sink that candidate's chances. We learned, in other words, that you can lie your way into the White House.
In this election, there are already lessons. Just yesterday we learned that "poverty" will never be the most important issue in a campaign (the corporate media will not allow it to be) and that the candidates who survive in a primary are always the ones with the most money and the most media fascination. We also learned that strategy counts, you can't skip the early primaries and expect to win, and fear isn't the issue it was four years ago. Invoking 9/11 and Islamofascism simply isn't enough to get you the nomination. Even though John Mccain continues to talk about terrorism and Islamofascism, exit polls in Florida revealed that the voters who cared most about the economy as well as the voters who want us out of Iraq cast the most votes for John MCain. So Republicans are voting for McCain not because of his desire to stay in Iraq indefinitely, but in spite of it. Hence, another lesson: voters choose candidates for reasons other than the issues.
What does this mean for the Democratic primary? Who knows? The Democratic electorate seems evenly divided between support for the first woman candidate and the first black candidate. Reading the blogs, and especially the comments by ordinary citizens at the end of the blogs, indicates that this primary is one big Rorschach test, with voters seeing what they want to see in their candidate, or as Bill Clinton says "In the primary, you fall in love with a candidate."
Some people have fallen in love with Hillary Clinton because, after sixteen years, they believe she is a known commodity, or because she is a woman, because they believe she will advocate for woman's issues much better than a man, because they actually want Bill back in the White House, because they trust she can be as good a commander in chief as any man, because she is tough enough to stomp on Republicans. They see Obama as too untested, no matter how good he sounds.
Others have fallen in love with Barack Obama. They like that he is a fresh, new face, that he doesn't have sixteen years of baggage, political loyalties, and corporate interests to define him. They contrast his strategy of uniting diverse groups of people to build a large majority including non-Democrats, in his campaign, rather than pulling together specific interest groups to eke out a 51% victory. They like listening to him, and being inspired by him, and they think those are just as important in getting the country to unite behind a president as are years of experience and toughness.
In the end, what I am learning is that in the Democratic primary voters are divided between trusting someone they know from the past, because of her intelligence and in spite of her baggage, and trusting someone less known, whose oratory, confidence and intelligence inspires them.
How this will all come down on Super Tuesday, is anybody's guess.
The 2000 election taught us that in an evenly divided electorate, a third party candidacy can enable the winner of the popular vote to be the loser. We also learned that a ruthless campaign manager/strategist can figure out how to "win" an election, even when his candidate loses the popular vote. And, of course, we learned that it is possible to steal an election if you are bold enough, if your brother is governor of a crucial state and can scrub the voting rolls, and if you have campaign staff thugs who are willing to pose as ordinary people demanding that a legal recount be stopped.
In 2004 we learned that fear, partly based a real threat, but stoked by lies and exaggerations, can determine the outcome of an election and that "independent" groups can spread lies about a candidate they oppose and sink that candidate's chances. We learned, in other words, that you can lie your way into the White House.
In this election, there are already lessons. Just yesterday we learned that "poverty" will never be the most important issue in a campaign (the corporate media will not allow it to be) and that the candidates who survive in a primary are always the ones with the most money and the most media fascination. We also learned that strategy counts, you can't skip the early primaries and expect to win, and fear isn't the issue it was four years ago. Invoking 9/11 and Islamofascism simply isn't enough to get you the nomination. Even though John Mccain continues to talk about terrorism and Islamofascism, exit polls in Florida revealed that the voters who cared most about the economy as well as the voters who want us out of Iraq cast the most votes for John MCain. So Republicans are voting for McCain not because of his desire to stay in Iraq indefinitely, but in spite of it. Hence, another lesson: voters choose candidates for reasons other than the issues.
What does this mean for the Democratic primary? Who knows? The Democratic electorate seems evenly divided between support for the first woman candidate and the first black candidate. Reading the blogs, and especially the comments by ordinary citizens at the end of the blogs, indicates that this primary is one big Rorschach test, with voters seeing what they want to see in their candidate, or as Bill Clinton says "In the primary, you fall in love with a candidate."
Some people have fallen in love with Hillary Clinton because, after sixteen years, they believe she is a known commodity, or because she is a woman, because they believe she will advocate for woman's issues much better than a man, because they actually want Bill back in the White House, because they trust she can be as good a commander in chief as any man, because she is tough enough to stomp on Republicans. They see Obama as too untested, no matter how good he sounds.
Others have fallen in love with Barack Obama. They like that he is a fresh, new face, that he doesn't have sixteen years of baggage, political loyalties, and corporate interests to define him. They contrast his strategy of uniting diverse groups of people to build a large majority including non-Democrats, in his campaign, rather than pulling together specific interest groups to eke out a 51% victory. They like listening to him, and being inspired by him, and they think those are just as important in getting the country to unite behind a president as are years of experience and toughness.
In the end, what I am learning is that in the Democratic primary voters are divided between trusting someone they know from the past, because of her intelligence and in spite of her baggage, and trusting someone less known, whose oratory, confidence and intelligence inspires them.
How this will all come down on Super Tuesday, is anybody's guess.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Real feminists think for themselves
Throughout our lives, we form opinions on a multiplicity of issues. At first, it is typical for our views to reflect those of our parents. Over time, as we are exposed to other views, and reflect on our own life experiences, our views evolve.
For example, we hear our parents' political views throughout our childhood and adolescence, and agree with them until we go off to live on our own, and either hear other views or just begin to experience life differently. Sometimes we adopt new views permanently, or sometimes just try them on temporarily before returning to our parents' views. Other times we may reject both and develop our own unique perspective.
The important thing is that at some point in our adult lives we live according to what we truly believe, neither because our parents believe it, nor because we still feel the need to rebel against them by adopting a contrary belief.
My husband and I grew up in ultra conservative families. Up until our early twenties, we were, like our families, conservative in our political, religious and cultural views. We went to church each Sunday and accepted all the dogmas of our church. We were conservative Republicans and couldn't understand why anyone could be a Democrat. We didn't oppose the war in Vietnam, even as protests surrounded us on our college campus. We thought a woman's place was in the home, not in the office.
While our fellow students didn't really change us, having adult experiences and learning to think for ourselves did. The first break with my parents' political views came in 1968, after the deaths of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy, when for the first time I really paid attention to the idealism and the fight against injustice represented by these two men. I turned 21 that year and it was the first time I could vote. Had RFK not been assassinated, I would have enthusiastically voted for him, much to my father's dismay. Instead I voted for Hubert Humphrey, only to see him lose to the first man to ever have to resign the presidency. I was still a registered Republican, not yet ready to sever my loyalty to my family, but eventually that changed too.
As we moved into the seventies and feminism arrived in full force, I was open to what people like Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan had to say. Even as people in my family and church disparaged "women's libbers" as crazy people, I understood what Friedan was saying about "the problem that has no name." I had that problem. I had a college degree and was raising three children and I thought I would go out of my mind. Motherhood wasn't my strong suit and I felt my brain cells were dying with every diaper I changed.
Though I no longer call myself a feminist (mainly because I believe we are in a different phase now, a post-feminist phase in which we must go beyond agitation to collaboration) I have remained an advocate of women's rights and am always somewhat sad when I encounter women who criticize the women's movement and use derogatory and demeaning terms like "women's libbers." I always ask them if they don't believe women are equal to men or shouldn't have the same rights as men. I remind them that they would not have the opportunities they have and their fantastic paychecks if the women's movement had never happened.
Sure, there have always been aspects of the women's movement I have had a hard time with. While I don't believe abortion should be criminalized, for instance, I simply can't approve of the radical pro-choice stance some women's groups take. As a mother of four children, I think abortion is always a tragedy, and I don't like the way some political groups treat it as if it just another form of birth control. I know this makes me out of line with other feminists, but remember what I said about the importance of developing your own views.
In general, though, I believe the goals of feminism have been admirable ones, and ones that have brought freedom and opportunities to women. The work is not finished, of course, and won't be until discrimination ends and equal pay is given for equal work, but once in a while I am ashamed of what some feminists do and yesterday was one of those days.
Yesterday, I read the statement by Marcia Pappas, the president of the New York chapter of NOW, slamming Ted Kennedy for his endorsement of Barack Obama and accusing him of "the ultimate betrayal." As I read the statement, it became clear that she felt Ted Kennedy owed women an endorsement of Hillary Clinton, and that anything short of that was unacceptable. She accused him of "abandonment," of "choosing the new guy over us." She sounded like a woman scorned, someone whose husband or lover just cheated on her. She also said that by supporting Obama, Kennedy was completely abandoning women's issues and that furthermore, he couldn't handle the idea of a woman president.
In other words, the only way Kennedy could have proven his dedication to women's issues was to have endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. Everything else he has done for women in all his years in the Senate simply doesn't count.
Whoa! This is the kind of woman that gives feminism a bad name. This woman is effectively saying: "We've waited long enough. We're tired of male presidents and now that we have found a strong woman, we demand that you support her. We don't care if she loses in the general election, or that she is riding her husband's coat tails, or that she supported the war, or that she is a terribly divisive figure, we demand that you support her or everything you have done up until now is a sham." (Boy will she be in for a surprise if and when Hillary Clinton becomes president and doesn't give in to all her demands.)
I thought feminism was about men and women being equal, not about demanding that a woman be given a free pass. I thought feminists would want a woman who got to the presidential nomination on her own merits, not because she is married to a former president, is at least partly running on his record, and sends him out in the campaign to be her hit man. I thought we had gotten past hating men, and blaming them for everything that has ever gone wrong in the lives of women.
There was a time for anger in the seventies. A lot of us were angry then because we were realizing that the unhappiness many of us felt was because we were stuck in the restrictive roles society set down for us. We woke up to the injustice and did something. We demanded entrance into colleges and occupations that banned us. We demanded better pay, and child care so we could go to work. We got elected to office. We educated our husbands and depending on their reactions, either divorced them or joined with them in moving our marriages to a different and more fulfilling place. And most of us got over our anger and started to like men again. We decided that it was better to work together and to appreciate our differences, not just insist we be treated exactly the same.
Sure, there are still some "sexist pigs," (as we used to call them) out there, but Ted Kennedy isn't one of them, and for Marcia Pappas to attack him when he made a decision that he is entitled to make, and that he sincerely believes is the best decision for women as well as men, not to mention the country, is just stupid.
Her letter wasn't the statement of a disappointed or frustrated woman who is passionately supporting her candidate. It was the cry of a deranged women, whose hatred of men simmers continually below the surface.
Feminism is not and should never be about hating men. Nor should it be about electing a female president regardless of who the female nominee is.
I have considered myself a supporter of woman's rights for many years, far more years than Marcia Pappas I suspect, but I am also a woman who thinks for herself, and doesn't live in a binary world of good and evil, black and white, and male and female. Ted Kennedy supports Barack Obama, as many of us do, precisely because Obama is a candidate who transcends such a binary world.
In my twenties, when I identified strongly with feminists and believed in the causes they fought for, I might have supported a candidate like Hillary Clinton just because she was a woman. As I was awakening to the discrimination against women, I went through my own phase of anger against the male establishment and thought we needed to do bold things and stand together. But times have changed and so have I. Now I believe our best hope is to have a fair contest between male and female candidates, with politicians and citizens, men and women, free to support whatever candidate best represents their views. I no longer believe a woman candidate deserves the support of all women and all liberal male politicians. To the contrary, I think that demeans the woman candidate.
I was glad to see the national organization distance itself from its New York chapter because I think the statement of Marcia Pappas disgraces us all.
She owes Ted Kennedy and all women an apology for her ridiculous outburst, which does nothing to help the cause of women.
Real feminists, male and female, make decisions based on more than gender.
For example, we hear our parents' political views throughout our childhood and adolescence, and agree with them until we go off to live on our own, and either hear other views or just begin to experience life differently. Sometimes we adopt new views permanently, or sometimes just try them on temporarily before returning to our parents' views. Other times we may reject both and develop our own unique perspective.
The important thing is that at some point in our adult lives we live according to what we truly believe, neither because our parents believe it, nor because we still feel the need to rebel against them by adopting a contrary belief.
My husband and I grew up in ultra conservative families. Up until our early twenties, we were, like our families, conservative in our political, religious and cultural views. We went to church each Sunday and accepted all the dogmas of our church. We were conservative Republicans and couldn't understand why anyone could be a Democrat. We didn't oppose the war in Vietnam, even as protests surrounded us on our college campus. We thought a woman's place was in the home, not in the office.
While our fellow students didn't really change us, having adult experiences and learning to think for ourselves did. The first break with my parents' political views came in 1968, after the deaths of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Robert F. Kennedy, when for the first time I really paid attention to the idealism and the fight against injustice represented by these two men. I turned 21 that year and it was the first time I could vote. Had RFK not been assassinated, I would have enthusiastically voted for him, much to my father's dismay. Instead I voted for Hubert Humphrey, only to see him lose to the first man to ever have to resign the presidency. I was still a registered Republican, not yet ready to sever my loyalty to my family, but eventually that changed too.
As we moved into the seventies and feminism arrived in full force, I was open to what people like Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan had to say. Even as people in my family and church disparaged "women's libbers" as crazy people, I understood what Friedan was saying about "the problem that has no name." I had that problem. I had a college degree and was raising three children and I thought I would go out of my mind. Motherhood wasn't my strong suit and I felt my brain cells were dying with every diaper I changed.
Though I no longer call myself a feminist (mainly because I believe we are in a different phase now, a post-feminist phase in which we must go beyond agitation to collaboration) I have remained an advocate of women's rights and am always somewhat sad when I encounter women who criticize the women's movement and use derogatory and demeaning terms like "women's libbers." I always ask them if they don't believe women are equal to men or shouldn't have the same rights as men. I remind them that they would not have the opportunities they have and their fantastic paychecks if the women's movement had never happened.
Sure, there have always been aspects of the women's movement I have had a hard time with. While I don't believe abortion should be criminalized, for instance, I simply can't approve of the radical pro-choice stance some women's groups take. As a mother of four children, I think abortion is always a tragedy, and I don't like the way some political groups treat it as if it just another form of birth control. I know this makes me out of line with other feminists, but remember what I said about the importance of developing your own views.
In general, though, I believe the goals of feminism have been admirable ones, and ones that have brought freedom and opportunities to women. The work is not finished, of course, and won't be until discrimination ends and equal pay is given for equal work, but once in a while I am ashamed of what some feminists do and yesterday was one of those days.
Yesterday, I read the statement by Marcia Pappas, the president of the New York chapter of NOW, slamming Ted Kennedy for his endorsement of Barack Obama and accusing him of "the ultimate betrayal." As I read the statement, it became clear that she felt Ted Kennedy owed women an endorsement of Hillary Clinton, and that anything short of that was unacceptable. She accused him of "abandonment," of "choosing the new guy over us." She sounded like a woman scorned, someone whose husband or lover just cheated on her. She also said that by supporting Obama, Kennedy was completely abandoning women's issues and that furthermore, he couldn't handle the idea of a woman president.
In other words, the only way Kennedy could have proven his dedication to women's issues was to have endorsed Hillary Clinton for president. Everything else he has done for women in all his years in the Senate simply doesn't count.
Whoa! This is the kind of woman that gives feminism a bad name. This woman is effectively saying: "We've waited long enough. We're tired of male presidents and now that we have found a strong woman, we demand that you support her. We don't care if she loses in the general election, or that she is riding her husband's coat tails, or that she supported the war, or that she is a terribly divisive figure, we demand that you support her or everything you have done up until now is a sham." (Boy will she be in for a surprise if and when Hillary Clinton becomes president and doesn't give in to all her demands.)
I thought feminism was about men and women being equal, not about demanding that a woman be given a free pass. I thought feminists would want a woman who got to the presidential nomination on her own merits, not because she is married to a former president, is at least partly running on his record, and sends him out in the campaign to be her hit man. I thought we had gotten past hating men, and blaming them for everything that has ever gone wrong in the lives of women.
There was a time for anger in the seventies. A lot of us were angry then because we were realizing that the unhappiness many of us felt was because we were stuck in the restrictive roles society set down for us. We woke up to the injustice and did something. We demanded entrance into colleges and occupations that banned us. We demanded better pay, and child care so we could go to work. We got elected to office. We educated our husbands and depending on their reactions, either divorced them or joined with them in moving our marriages to a different and more fulfilling place. And most of us got over our anger and started to like men again. We decided that it was better to work together and to appreciate our differences, not just insist we be treated exactly the same.
Sure, there are still some "sexist pigs," (as we used to call them) out there, but Ted Kennedy isn't one of them, and for Marcia Pappas to attack him when he made a decision that he is entitled to make, and that he sincerely believes is the best decision for women as well as men, not to mention the country, is just stupid.
Her letter wasn't the statement of a disappointed or frustrated woman who is passionately supporting her candidate. It was the cry of a deranged women, whose hatred of men simmers continually below the surface.
Feminism is not and should never be about hating men. Nor should it be about electing a female president regardless of who the female nominee is.
I have considered myself a supporter of woman's rights for many years, far more years than Marcia Pappas I suspect, but I am also a woman who thinks for herself, and doesn't live in a binary world of good and evil, black and white, and male and female. Ted Kennedy supports Barack Obama, as many of us do, precisely because Obama is a candidate who transcends such a binary world.
In my twenties, when I identified strongly with feminists and believed in the causes they fought for, I might have supported a candidate like Hillary Clinton just because she was a woman. As I was awakening to the discrimination against women, I went through my own phase of anger against the male establishment and thought we needed to do bold things and stand together. But times have changed and so have I. Now I believe our best hope is to have a fair contest between male and female candidates, with politicians and citizens, men and women, free to support whatever candidate best represents their views. I no longer believe a woman candidate deserves the support of all women and all liberal male politicians. To the contrary, I think that demeans the woman candidate.
I was glad to see the national organization distance itself from its New York chapter because I think the statement of Marcia Pappas disgraces us all.
She owes Ted Kennedy and all women an apology for her ridiculous outburst, which does nothing to help the cause of women.
Real feminists, male and female, make decisions based on more than gender.
A woman of her word?
Just a few weeks ago I wrote that I was sympathetic to Hillary Clinton, and would vote for her if she was the nominee even though I am supporting Barack Obama, because the possibility of another four years of disastrous Republican policies and never-ending war was simply too painful to contemplate.
I probably still will vote for her if she is the nominee, as the Republican candidates haven't yet turned into compassionate and decent human beings, but the thought of voting for her increasingly turns my stomach.
I've written about the pathology of the Clintons already, and stated why putting them back in the White House would be bad for the country (though not as bad as putting McCain or Romney or Huckabee in – just bad in a different way), but Hillary's refusal to honor her word with respect to the Michigan and Florida primaries should be a lesson to all of us.
Hillary can't be trusted to keep her word.
My understanding is that all of the candidates agreed they would not campaign in Florida or Michigan because those two states moved their primaries up after the Democratic Party had agreed that only Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina would be allowed to hold their caucuses and primaries before Super Tuesday. They also agreed that Michagan's and Florida's delegates would not be seated at the convention and so they would have no say in who the nominee was. Obama and Edwards took their names off the Michigan ballot, in the spirit of honoring their pledge. Hillary kept her name on the ballot, so of course, she won.
In Florida, though, the candidates' names all remained on the ballot. Now, Hillary is trying to curry favor with Floridians by saying that she wants the delegates from both Michigan and Florida to be seated and their votes to count. And tonight she is holding a victory party in Florida in anticipation of her win. Some say she is doing this to leave voters with a memory of a Clinton victory rather than the memory of Obama's South Carolina victory before Super Tuesday.
This may be true, but it may also be true that she realizes the race is so close that the only way she can avoid a floor fight with Obama at the convention is to seat those delegates.
What these tactics tell me is that Hillary is not a woman of her word. She changes her mind and goes back on a promise in order to win. And it isn't the first time. The Clinton campaign, or Clinton surrogates, also tried to change the rules in Nevada. After the Nevada Democratic Party had decided to hold caucuses in the casinos to allow the workers there to participate, a lawsuit was filed to disallow these caucuses. Of course, the lawsuit, brought by the union that supported Hillary, was only filed after the union representing the casino workers endorsed Obama. Fancy that!
These reversals may be smart politics, but they are also a sign of raw ambition, with honesty and integrity taking a back seat. And campaign tactics aren't the only place where we've seen Hillary put her ambition before anything else.
We all know that Hillary's vote to support the Iraq War was a calculated political move. She knew she could not vote "no," even if it was the right thing to do because she believed it would kill her chances to be commander in chief. I guess she figured the vote would be far enough away from her 2008 campaign to allow people time to forget. And it appears many Democrats have because she is currently the front runner in a party whose members opposed the war when she supported it.
The American people deserve better than candidates who lie, scheme, cheat, and steal. George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and most of all Richard Nixon have manifested such glaring character flaws. Hillary's recent actions in the campaign show us that she is capable of the same.
Andrew Sullivan cites one of his readers who calls Hillary "Nixon in a Pantsuit."
I really hate to say it, but I think Andrew's reader was right.
I probably still will vote for her if she is the nominee, as the Republican candidates haven't yet turned into compassionate and decent human beings, but the thought of voting for her increasingly turns my stomach.
I've written about the pathology of the Clintons already, and stated why putting them back in the White House would be bad for the country (though not as bad as putting McCain or Romney or Huckabee in – just bad in a different way), but Hillary's refusal to honor her word with respect to the Michigan and Florida primaries should be a lesson to all of us.
Hillary can't be trusted to keep her word.
My understanding is that all of the candidates agreed they would not campaign in Florida or Michigan because those two states moved their primaries up after the Democratic Party had agreed that only Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina would be allowed to hold their caucuses and primaries before Super Tuesday. They also agreed that Michagan's and Florida's delegates would not be seated at the convention and so they would have no say in who the nominee was. Obama and Edwards took their names off the Michigan ballot, in the spirit of honoring their pledge. Hillary kept her name on the ballot, so of course, she won.
In Florida, though, the candidates' names all remained on the ballot. Now, Hillary is trying to curry favor with Floridians by saying that she wants the delegates from both Michigan and Florida to be seated and their votes to count. And tonight she is holding a victory party in Florida in anticipation of her win. Some say she is doing this to leave voters with a memory of a Clinton victory rather than the memory of Obama's South Carolina victory before Super Tuesday.
This may be true, but it may also be true that she realizes the race is so close that the only way she can avoid a floor fight with Obama at the convention is to seat those delegates.
What these tactics tell me is that Hillary is not a woman of her word. She changes her mind and goes back on a promise in order to win. And it isn't the first time. The Clinton campaign, or Clinton surrogates, also tried to change the rules in Nevada. After the Nevada Democratic Party had decided to hold caucuses in the casinos to allow the workers there to participate, a lawsuit was filed to disallow these caucuses. Of course, the lawsuit, brought by the union that supported Hillary, was only filed after the union representing the casino workers endorsed Obama. Fancy that!
These reversals may be smart politics, but they are also a sign of raw ambition, with honesty and integrity taking a back seat. And campaign tactics aren't the only place where we've seen Hillary put her ambition before anything else.
We all know that Hillary's vote to support the Iraq War was a calculated political move. She knew she could not vote "no," even if it was the right thing to do because she believed it would kill her chances to be commander in chief. I guess she figured the vote would be far enough away from her 2008 campaign to allow people time to forget. And it appears many Democrats have because she is currently the front runner in a party whose members opposed the war when she supported it.
The American people deserve better than candidates who lie, scheme, cheat, and steal. George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and most of all Richard Nixon have manifested such glaring character flaws. Hillary's recent actions in the campaign show us that she is capable of the same.
Andrew Sullivan cites one of his readers who calls Hillary "Nixon in a Pantsuit."
I really hate to say it, but I think Andrew's reader was right.
The State of the Union Speech: George Bush discovers a new word
Last night the president showed us he had learned a new word, or at least his speechwriters had. The word was EMPOWER. He used it 11 times. That's a lot of times for Bush to use a three syllable word in a speech, so I figure it must be significant.
Back in the days when I was a psychotherapist, my colleagues used that word a lot, and, contrarian that I am, I always hated it. To me, it's one of those words that really means nothing.
"What does it mean?" I used to ask my fellow therapists. "How do you empower someone exactly?" Whereupon they would look at me like I was a heretic, or they would give me a lecture on the specific type of therapy they used to achieve said empowerment. I still maintained it was psychobabble.
"Empower" is one of those words that really can mean whatever you want it to mean. I suspect Bush wasn't well acquainted with the word. But in conservative parlance, the word "empower" certainly does have meaning, and it usually means "you're going to have to do it yourself because we in the government certainly aren't going to help."
So I am going to decode the 11 uses of the word "empower" in the State of the Union speech. I will present the exact sentence in which the word "empower" was used, followed by what each sentence actually meant to the conservative Republicans in the House chamber who were listening and applauding madly.
"So in all we do, we must trust in the ability of free people to make wise decisions, and empower them to improve their lives and their futures." (Meaning: you're on your own; we in the government aren't going to help. Besides, we're much better at destroying the lives of people - like in Iraq or New Orleans - than we are at improving them.)
"To build a prosperous future, we must trust people with their own money and empower them to grow our economy." (Meaning: rich people shouldn't have to pay taxes so they can use that money to get even richer and create jobs where they pay minimum wage, provided they can't find enough illegal workers to pay under the table.)
"On housing, we must trust Americans with the responsibility of homeownership and empower them to weather turbulent times in the housing market." (Meaning: we said we favored an "ownership society" but that didn't mean we were going to regulate lenders and mortgage brokers, so if you were dumb enough to take on one of those stupid sub-prime loans with the low teaser rates, and now you can't afford payments with the new interest rate, well that's just one of the risks of home ownership.)
"To build a future of quality health care, we must trust patients and doctors to make medical decisions and empower them with better information and better options." (Meaning: we encourage the pharmaceutical companies to advertise on television so you'll be sure and know about the newest drugs, but we won't regulate the insurance industry or the pharmaceutical industry, and we certainly won't do anything to keep the cost of insurance down. If you're not willing to work an extra job to afford health insurance, well that's your problem.)
"On education, we must trust students to learn if given the chance and empower parents to demand results from our schools." (Meaning: ?....Trust students to learn if given the chance? …I have no clue what this means; it's gibberish. )
"On trade, we must trust American workers to compete with anyone in the world and empower them by opening up new markets overseas." (Meaning: the American workers who still work in the ever shrinking manufacturing sector in the United States are working harder than ever, but those jobs will be gone soon. Except of course for the jobs in the arms industry, which we intend to keep growing. But never fear, once we pass those free trade agreements and we export your job, you will be able to buy more cheap stuff at Wal Mart.)
"To build a future of energy security, we must trust in the creative genius of American researchers and entrepreneurs and empower them to pioneer a new generation of clean energy technology." (Meaning: This sounds good but I don't really mean it. Dick and I would lose a lot of money if we stopped our dependence on oil, and our buddies in the industry would be really pissed, so what I really mean is let's drill in Alaska and all over the country to find more oil, and invade a couple more Middle Eastern countries so we can get our hands on our oil that unfairly ended up under their soil.)
"To keep America competitive into the future, we must trust in the skill of our scientists and engineers and empower them to pursue the breakthroughs of tomorrow." (Meaning: I don't really believe in science, but I'm saying this because it sounds good to those who do. Anyway the world is ending soon, so it doesn't really matter what I say about science.)
"On matters of science and life, we must trust in the innovative spirit of medical researchers and empower them to discover new treatments while respecting moral boundaries." (Meaning: If you send me another bill to fund embryonic stem cell research I will veto it again.)
"On matters of justice, we must trust in the wisdom of our Founders and empower judges who understand that the Constitution means what it says." (Meaning: the Constitution is just a piece of paper – you don't expect me to have read the whole thing, do you? Just because I haven't read the Constitution doesn't mean my judges haven't, and I trust them to interpret it whatever way Dick wants them to. And he says they have to favor corporations and executive power. )
"In communities across our land, we must trust in the good heart of the American people and empower them to serve their neighbors in need." (Meaning: entitlement programs must be ended.)
Monday, January 28, 2008
Superman
I don't know if anyone should pay any attention to polls anymore as they have been wrong in every primary and caucus to date.
But the polls are telling us that Hillary is still ahead in most super Tuesday states. Since the vote is a week from tomorrow, that doesn't give Mr. Obama much time to catch up and pass her. But as I said, the polls have been terribly wrong. With two candidates who are unlike any candidates the country has ever seen, the polls simply don't know how to measure the mood of the voters.
Hillary is the first serious woman candidate, and perhaps more importantly, the first First Lady to run. Voters have mixed feelings. Many who would love to finally see a woman president aren't sure they want the first one to be Hillary. Voters are feeling love and revulsion at the same time: love for who the Clintons once were, and revulsion at what they have become. Many who supported Hillary a week ago have switched their allegience to Obama.
Barack Obama is not only the first African American to have a real shot at the nomination, he is an African American who transcends race. Again, voters aren't sure what to think. Just when they agree with Hillary that he is too inexperienced, they hear him speak and hear not only evidence of experience, but evidence of maturity and wisdom. Barack Obama is not just a candidate, he is a phenomenon, a politician with the potential to be a statesman, a visionary and prophet all rolled into one, and many voters are deciding this is their chance to be on the right side of history, to participate in something that could return the country to greatness. They are increasingly seeing Hillary as the past, Barack as the future.
Ted Kennedy and his niece Caroline Kennedy are right to see the potential greatness in him. He reminds them of the two fallen Kennedys who inspired another generation.
If the polls are right this time, and Obama loses to Hillary, then we all lose with him. We will have missed an opportunity to move in a new direction, towards a place we very much need to go. If Hillary wins the nomination, she may or may not beat the Republican nominee in November. Her negatives are so high, and her momentum so poor, that she is likely to ensure four more years of Republican insanity. If she is victorious and does become the next president, however, things could be just as bad.
On the other hand, a surprise Obama victory on Super Tuesday will not only energize Democrats, but also capture the entire country. Already he is causing Republicans to pay serious attention. An Obama come-from-behind win on Tuesday will show us just how powerful a figure he is. If he defeats the Clintons, when they have had an enormous lead, he will be a superhero, a giant killer who did the impossible, and whose momentum will carry him to the White House in November.
And that's just the beginning.
Children should be seen and not heard... and appropriately medicated?
Another good article about the collaboration between Big Pharma and the Psychiatric profession in the effort to control our children.
THE CLINTON PATHOLOGY
The television pundits keep trying to convince us that overall Bill's presence on the campaign trail is helping Hillary. "He's still a beloved figure in the Democratic Party," some say. Others call him the "big dog" or the "head of the party." Even when they are commenting on his questionable behavior or his head-scratching comments, they seem to think he does more good than harm because of his charisma and charm and political skills.
I'm not so sure.
Hillary seemed to be doing fine as long as Bill was running around being a reformed politician, a do-gooder who traveled the globe handing out money. But the minute someone in Hillary's campaign decided they needed his help (about five minutes after it became apparent Hillary would lose Iowa, I suspect) the campaign was in big trouble. Why? Because Bill Clinton has an enormous amount of emotional baggage that can't stay hidden forever, especially once he feels threatened.
Continue reading on Outraged Citizen
Saturday, January 26, 2008
The American Candidate
The Clintons say they are not playing the race card. Then how do you explain this?
Bill Clinton (once dubbed the nation's "first black president") dismissed the importance of Obama's South Carolina win by saying Jesse Jackson won in South Carolina twice. He didn't say John Edwards, the white male candidate, won four years ago in South Carolina. He pointed to victories by a black candidate. How is that NOT playing the race card?
And according to the AP, via Josh Marshall:
So the Clinton strategy was successful, according to their strategists, because it has now branded Obama the black candidate.
They had better think again. And first they should take a look at the crowd listening to Obama's stirring, eloquent victory speech. The crowd was, as CNN noted, one of the most diverse they had ever seen in a presidential campaign.
No Bill and Hillary. Senator Obama is not the black candidate, as much as you may want to label him as such. He is the candidate who transcends race, and the people see it and hear it and feel it. Even radically conservative Bill Bennett saw it in commenting on Obama's speech on CNN.
Barack Obama is the American candidate.
Bill Clinton (once dubbed the nation's "first black president") dismissed the importance of Obama's South Carolina win by saying Jesse Jackson won in South Carolina twice. He didn't say John Edwards, the white male candidate, won four years ago in South Carolina. He pointed to victories by a black candidate. How is that NOT playing the race card?
And according to the AP, via Josh Marshall:
Clinton campaign strategists denied any intentional effort to stir the racial debate. But they said they believe the fallout has had the effect of branding Obama as "the black candidate," a tag that could hurt him outside the South.
So the Clinton strategy was successful, according to their strategists, because it has now branded Obama the black candidate.
They had better think again. And first they should take a look at the crowd listening to Obama's stirring, eloquent victory speech. The crowd was, as CNN noted, one of the most diverse they had ever seen in a presidential campaign.
No Bill and Hillary. Senator Obama is not the black candidate, as much as you may want to label him as such. He is the candidate who transcends race, and the people see it and hear it and feel it. Even radically conservative Bill Bennett saw it in commenting on Obama's speech on CNN.
Barack Obama is the American candidate.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)