Home

Advertisement

mojave_wolf [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
mojave_wolf

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

In memory of the anti-Stupak [Nov. 15th, 2009|08:33 pm]
[Tags|, , , , , ]
[mood |respectful]

This guy died in 1992, but Digby's post tonight memorializing him seems appropriate . . .

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2009/11/good-conscience-by-digby-whens-last.html

Former Assemblyman George M. Michaels, who cast the deciding vote to liberalize New York's abortion law in 1970 . . .

represented a largely rural, mostly conservative and heavily Roman Catholic constituency . . .

on April 9, he realized that the measure was doomed without his support. He rose to take the microphone, his hands trembling. "I realize, Mr. Speaker, that I am terminating my political career, but I cannot in good conscience sit here and allow my vote to be the one that defeats this bill," he declared. "I ask that my vote be changed from 'no' to 'yes.' " . . .

I guess that would be considered to be foolishly self-sacrificing in these days of "common ground" and looking for an easy way out. It's just a bargaining chip for more important issues about which Real Americans feel strongly. But there was a time when it was a matter of conscience and people thought such things were worth paying a political price for.
link2 comments|post comment

"Stomach-churning" link/thoughts/quotes to start the day . . . [May. 4th, 2008|10:24 am]
[Tags|, , , , , , , , , ]

I'm eventually going to post other things today, but this needs to stand all on its on.

Quoting hopefully-not-too-liberally from this Shaker Chingona at this link:
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/05/horrifying-new-law-forced-ultrasounds.html

"Last week, the Oklahoma Legislature overrode the governor's veto and enacted a law that . . . requires that the woman have either an abdominal or a vaginal ultrasound, whichever offers the clearer picture, as a condition of having an abortion. For almost all women having first trimester abortions, the transvaginal ultrasound will offer a clearer picture.

Dr. Dana Stone, a member of the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, wrote on Alternet:

Neither the patient nor the doctor can decide which type of ultrasound to use, and the patient cannot opt out of the ultrasound and still have the procedure. In effect, then, the legislature has mandated that a woman have an instrument placed in her vagina for no medical benefit. The law makes no exception for victims of rape and incest.

. . . one of the most stomach-churning requirements I have ever seen. They are willing to physically violate and humiliate women who are determined to have an abortion and willing to use the threat of that humiliation to try to dissuade women from having a legal medical procedure. Even the normally distressing commenters at Salon's Broadsheet understood that this is just wrong. As one so aptly said, isn't there a word for sticking something in a woman's vagina against her free and uncoerced will?

Yes, there is. Thank you, Oklahoma Legislature, for mandating medical rape.

I would like to believe this law would be found unconstitutional. I know of no other situation in which a patient would be refused the ability to turn down a medically unnecessary procedure. But with our current Supreme Court, I fear we soon will be told this is a necessary measure to protect women from themselves."

Sorry to quote so much from someone else, but s/he said it so well . . .

From the comments to this, apparently this was the first override of this governor's veto in his five years in office, and it was done w/help of some democrats in the state legislature. This is why I will never say "any democrat is better than any republican", because some of them aren't.
link8 comments|post comment

On prostitution, abortion & framing, Ferrarro & the future of the Democratic party . . . [Mar. 13th, 2008|12:50 pm]
[Tags|, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ]

I favor the decriminalization of prostitution--one of my best friends from the 90's was working as an escort at the time we were friends plus I dated two other people who had worked as prostitutes in the past, & I've several times commented that as long as they're not hurting anyone, politician's personal lives should be between them and their family and friends. So you might think I'd have some sympathy for Eliot Spitzer.

No. Zero. Zilch. None.

While he made in career in part on cracking down on financial sector abuses, which was a good thing and might even give some validity to theories on why he was investigated & taken down in the first place, he also made his career in part on putting prostitutes in jail. He was probably seeing them then, too. Hope I don't need to elaborate further. Hang the fucker.

*****************************************************************************

I am somewhat upset with myself for leaving out something important the last couple of times women's reproductive freedom has come up, and one of the reasons I used to get so extremely upset with the people over at Kos on this subject, and why I once got so upset with the language Hillary used (though I do think she's redeemed herself several times over since then), and why I wish this issue would be stressed more:

Choice, reproductive freedom, abortion, however you call it, was always a *winning* issue for the Democrats. The *vast majority* of the country favored keeping it legal, with minimal restrictions. There was no sense of "badness" about it in liberal/progressive circles.

Then after 2000, a bunch of fucking idiots noticed we were not doing well in the South, and that many people in the South tended to be rather frighteningly anti-abortion. (having grown up there and still visiting it at least once a year through the millenial new year, let me say that these same people tend to be racist, sexist, homophobic and put up giant billboards by the side of the road saying "Go to Church or Go to Hell", not to mention occasionally frame people for murder because they are goth/pagan, and all sorts of other fun stuff, and catering to them is so fucked up I don't know what to say) It became conventional wisdom that right wing nutters who voted against Democratic politicians could be won back without losing any left wing people because left wingers don't base their vote as strongly on this issue. Suddenly, you started hearing all sorts of muted and qualified language on abortion, because the most incompetent consultants in the world decided that if we eased up on this issue, maybe we could win back the South.

Three things happened as a result:
(1) Public dialogue on the subject shifted rightward.
(2) Shortly following this, public opinion on the subject began to shift rightward (tho it is still at worst a 50/50 proposition for us)
(3) The South continued to be as conservative and solidly Republican as ever.

And no, I don't think this is why the Democrats took back Congress in 2006. The economy and Iraq are why we took back Congress. And quite honestly, given what these new, not at all progressive people the complete strategic dumbasses at Kos have championed have done since they got in, and for that matter, what all the Democrats have done since they got in, why the fuck should we compromise the framing on even a trivial issue, much less a life or death issue to a lot of people that also tells you a lot about what people think about human rights and civil liberties in general, (not to mention it's kind of telling to see what people think about the relative importance of women and fetuses)(and self-defense rights, for that matter), in order to help worthless dipshits like these get elected?

But I digress . . .

In sum, abortion used to be a winning issue for us. I still think it could be, and would not be a losing issue, and is one of the last things we should compromise on, not the first. And the compromising that Democrats have done in their votes/statements about the issue is in part responsible for the rightward shift in thinking on the issue in this decade, and basically, it would be nice if *all* the progressive Democrats running for *anything* this fall spoke up about the link between the right to abortion and women's basic freedom and right to self-determination. Or at least said something about it on their website, instead of leaving it off while including a link about their fondness for "Sportsmen".

**************************

Geraldine Ferrarro -- Okay, this was stupid of her. Glad she resigned. No question that she was right about Obama not being where he was today "if he was a woman of any color." And I've noticed that part of her statement isn't generating quite so much controversy. And while I would have urged caution about saying it, given the already heated nature of the race, given how much the Obama campaign keeps hammering on the race issue, I think this would have been a fair thing to bring up.

But the part about him not being where he is now if he wasn't black? You can argue yay or nay on this one, but that's totally beside the point. The reaction to this was 100% predictable, and the campaign is already overheated, and this ain't gonna help either the party or Hillary's campaign, and even though the remark was made for some out of the way paper somewhere and didn't get any headlines nationally until days later when Obama supporters began jumping on it (so much for the "trying to influence the electorate with dog-whistles" theory on this one), how could she not realize how it would be taken? At one point Bill saying he thinks Obama is a good candidate was called a racist remark. And the MSM and the pro-Obama wing of the blogosphere and the Obama campaign itself have all accused the Clinton campaign of racism so much that, people being the easily manipulated, infuriatingly sheeplike creatures that they are, many many many people who should know better are actually starting to wonder about or even believe in this despicable shit simply through sheer repetition and the not-always-apt smoke/fire analogy that gets put into our brain as babies.

For those out there who actually think the Clinton campaign is deliberately doing this -- okay, I'll grant you, democratic campaign strategists have not exactly impressed over the last 8 years or so, or really for the last 24, at least, come to think of it, but . . . they're not *that* stupid. WHY would the Clintons do this? It's not a general election campaigns, and for the most part the racists are in the other party. To the extent there are racists in the Democratic party, they are a tiny fragment, dwarfed by those of us who think being called racist is akin to being called a child molester. It's a lose-anyway-you-look-at-it strategy for Clinton to do anything vaguely racist, which is exactly why the rather sociopathic Obama campaign strategy has been to focus on anything which can be portrayed as racist and publicize it to the Heavens. Granted, he might be out of the race now if he hadn't done this, but I think it will hurt him in the general election (while it was the Obama supporters who started back in December or January blathering to the point of making me wanna scream about how they might not or would not vote for Hillary in the general, and were in some cases way back then saying they'd vote for the Republican nominee if Hillary got it--and this was when Huckabee was still in contention!--I think both his fans in the DNC and Obama himself have failed to count on just how angry and disgusted his tactics would make Hillary supporters) and may have already destroyed the Democratic party beyond fixing (see again: anger & disgust on the part of Hillary supporters, many of whom now regard Obama with the same fondness we have for the MSM and the Bush administration; while, should she win, we have the dilemna of Obama supporters. If they don't think their candidate is a complete phony who preaches high-mindedness while running a campaign that is spiritual twin to those of Karl Rove, they pretty much *have* to regard Hillary as an evil monster, since that is how Obama's top campaign people have insisted on portraying her for months now, unless Obama can convince them to believe he had nothing to do with w/what Axelrod & Jackson Jr & etc have been putting out there).

I was going to write more on all this, but I suddenly find myself incredibly tired of the mess. Whether the Democratic party is even worth saving and how even if it isn't I wish it had picked a different election cycle to self-destruct because I don't think we can afford another 4 years of Republican economics and war-mongering, and several other topics I meant to cover will have to wait. Y'all probably figure this post is long enough anyway . . .
link5 comments|post comment

A bit late, but still happy about Tuesday. =) [Mar. 6th, 2008|09:25 am]
[Tags|, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ]

"For everyone ... who’s ever been counted out but refused to be knocked out, and for everyone who has stumbled but stood right back up, and for everyone who works hard and never gives up, this one is for you."

You want non-issue oriented, inspirational quotes? That has to be one of the best quotes of the entire campaign, and honestly, when she's on, as she was there, I find her to be every bit as inspirational as him, as when she went on to say,

"You know what they say, as Ohio goes, so goes the nation.

Well, this nation’s coming back, and so is this campaign."

Heaven knows I *hope* this nation is coming back, because if we continue in our death spiral most of the country is going to make "Death Race 2000" look like a prophecy that was just a decade or two ahead of time, and I think a Hillary Clinton presidency is our best chance to avoid this fate, so rather than simply cheerleading, here's a list of reasons why I'm not just picking her as a lesser of evils but enthusiastically supporting her (and I'm talking about in the primary here, as I'd be really surprised if anyone reading this would vote for McCain under any remotely likely set of circumstances):

(1) Plan B contraception. Without Hillary (and Patty Murray), this *still* wouldn't be available over the counter. I've seen numerous people try to counter "Hillary is a fighter" with "What has she successfully fought for?" This is exhibit A on the list.

(1A) Women's reproductive freedom in general. She didn't just support the Alito filibuster and oppose the Roberts nomination, she spoke about these things, albeit in a losing cause. For a whole list of things, (and a few other things like family medical leave and such) go here: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2008/02/07/why-hillary-clinton-is-the-best-choice-for-women

I would add to this that I think women's reproductive freedom is an essential civil right to *everyone*'s freedom and even if all else were equal, her work in this area would make her a clear cut choice over Obama, who wasn't for the Alito filibuster and wasn't fighting for any of these things and didn't just go along with a plan to vote "present" on abortion issues in Illinois but is actually the one who came up with the plan.

(2) Her health care plan is better. It covers everyone, it's based on a sliding wage scale so people lower down on the ladder are paying little to nothing and people who aren't making anything don't have to shell out money they don't have, contrary to the "negative, fear-mongering" ads that the Obama campaign has been running.* Also, it does a better job of keeping costs down and the insurance companies in line (see Paul Krugman for detailed analysis)

(3) Her bill to get the mercenaries out of Iraq. Yes, her bill. That she introduced. To shockingly little coverage. Her bill to get mercenaries out of Iraq, which Obama initially opposed, tho he was waffling a bit last time I noticed.

Yes, the timing is beyond curious, it's *obvious*. She is doing this now not just because it's a good idea but because it's good politics. But it *is* a great bill, doing a good thing, which someone should have introduced long ago. She, now, is the one who's finally *doing* it. Better late than never and all that. And Obama's opposition . . . all the people who think he's the better guy to get us out of Iraq, is above politics on these issues, and is the peace love and understanding candidate, who also is about making positive change happen even when it means working with the opposition and is supposedly above and out to end politics as usual, anyone want to try to explain how his position here fits in with that?

(4) Global warming solutions. Hillary's clean energy plan emphasizes solar, Barack's "clean" energy plan emphasizes nuclear (tho to be fair, during one of the debates he stated that wanted to see the waste problem solved; I don't think it can be which is one tho hardly the only reason I'm not favoring this). She had a really good announcement back in, January, I think, about this plan and all the "green jobs" she hoped it would add. I saw it covered maybe one or two places online, heard not a whisper elsewhere, and then never heard from it again, in yet another exammple of our national press corps doing a bang-up job of focusing on the important things.****

(5) Demonstrated competence at actually showing up for and doing her job. While she and Obama have both been campaigning for president, they are each in charge of running a committee. She has called several meetings of hers, as well as attending meetings of others she belongs to. Obama has yet to call a single meeting of his committee, with the explanation that he's been too busy running for president. Seriously? If you can't do the job, don't take the job. Especially if the committee involves Afghanistan and you're campaigning in part on what you think should be done in Afghanistan and why you think you are the best person to do it. She's running a subcommittee on environmental issues (which again is getting no coverage because, again, our national press corp is either incompetent or very competent at something that has nothing whatsoever to do with actual news; I'm inclined to think it's both) and making time to do her job in the midst of the campaign.


(6) She's still standing. Like her, love her, dislike her, hate her, find her personality indifferent, whatever, how can anyone not admire her toughness and resilience?

When the campaign first started, supposedly she was offered the presidency of the Senate to get her to step aside because the democratic leadership, from the senate to the DLC that Obama used to belong to but which she keeps getting accused of being the child of, thought her negatives were too high and she couldn't win. She was supposedly made the same offer last weekend if she would get out before this past Tuesday. Starting back in October, she had all the other candidates piling on and tag-teaming against her (occasionally excluding Richardson). The media has been out to destroy her since, oh, 1991? She's been accused of being a murderer, of having affairs, of being racist, and alone of all politicians, of pretty much everything except child molestation and rape, at this point, while the media has done its best to ignore and play down her accomplishments. I'm 42, and have been paying fairly close attention to politics since the early 80's, and never has anyone running for office had to run such a primary gauntlet. Well, I take that back. Howard Dean got attacked equally bad. And promptly got turned on by a brainwashed electorate and was gone in weeks despite basically saving the party from imploding permanently beyond repair, as he forced Kerry to move left and quit being Bush-lite in order to get rid of him, thus preventing a genuine blow-out win for Bush (this said by someone who thinks Dean has done a horrible, horrible, horrible job running the democratic party). Al Gore got unfairly put through the ringer, to a truly horrible extent, but not like this. Especially for a primary, the sheer hatred and the anything goes, lies-are-the-truth level of campaigning against her . . . okay, the Karl Rove led, "your wife is a drug addict and your adopted child is actually from your mistress who by the way is not white so all good racist Republicans must not vote for you!" stuff against John Mcain in South Carolina 2000 is hard to top, and the stuff against Clinton has been no worse than that, either, except in the sense that she's accused of bringing the race issue into the campaign and fanning the flames of it when it is actually the Obama camp that deliberately brought it in (see: http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304 among other places), except that, again, when all (completely bogus, untruthful, bullshit lying) hell hit McCain, the voters turned and he was out of there. Hillary? After months of this, still standing.

The Democratic base has been clamoring for a fighter, not someone who will semi-easily semi-cave like Gore did in 2000 and concede when there were still battles to be fought, not someone who won't even try to fight the obvious battle against the obvious fraud in Ohio like Kerry in 2004. I don't think Hillary would have caved either time. Hell, as the Obama camp likes to say, she lost 11 straight elections (not 11 primaries; clearly, Obama does well in caucuses even in states where he loses the primary, like Texas, and what the hell is the point of that anyway and don't even get me started on caucuses, or superdelegates; neither should exist, but in this case should she win the popular vote by a fair margin but he have more delegates due to caucus superiority, I'd think the superdelegates performed a useful function by validating the will of the majority and the importance of the more-democratic primaries over the less democratic caucuses, and then we can get rid of both the things which shouldn't exist). Then came back and won three (including all the primaries up for grabs), two by huge margins, including one that is one of the single most important swing states. That? Is toughness.

(7) The incompetent and/or evil mainstream media hates her. Or, as one of said media who is covering this campaign said about her before it started, "I hate her, I hate her, I hate her. I hate everything she stands for." They like Obama. Or, as same member of mainstream media said, "If you aren't moved by his speeches, you're not an American." And "Listening to him speak sends a thrill up my leg." (not that I don't think they'll turn on Obama and come out for McCain if that turns out to be the match-up) Anyway, the MSM hates her. A whole bunch of sexist scumbuckets hate her, too, on both the right and left, for reasons that essentially amount to her being an uppity woman. Spit in their eye.

(8) Contrary to conventional wisdom, I think she's more electable, even aside from the "harder to bury" argument. I think either she or Obama will beat McCain in the fall, but in the meantime, she won Florida and Ohio by wide margins(and the people of Florida, which could be decisive again, are mightily pissed off at the Democratic leadership, but not so pissed off at her, and for those "rules are rules" people, the Florida democrats had nothing to do with the date of their election, the Florida republicans passed a bill in the state legislature requiring both their primaries be held then, ticking off Florida is like French-kissing the Republicans, and giving the Republican Florida state legislatures a couple of extra tongue swirls while you're at it), New Mexico & Nevada even w/the caucus handicap, has more good will in and will probably in event of a do-over win Michigan easily again, etc. His only swing-y wins thus far are in caucuses, and in Missourri by one point, iirc. There are no caucuses in the general election.

My other reasons for voting for her are more "reasons not to vote for Obama", so I'll skip them, and reasons not to vote for her have been covered aplenty by others, so I'll skip those too.

*********************

*Sorry for that bit of derisiveness, but all the freak-out over the 3 AM phone call ad that just asks a question and lets people figure it out for themselves**, coming from people supporting a candidate*** who has been negative since he started questioning her integrity last October and who ran the deliberate distortion trying to scare people that her plan would force people to buy expensive insurance they can't afford, has me kinda ticked off for at least the next month or two.
** That said, yeah, the ad was minor-league fear mongering and the sort of thing I'd rather not see in politics. But not only was it much milder than a whole host of shit Obama's campaign has done, and barely fear-mongering at all by the standards of the last, oh, my entire lifetime, but does anyone in their right mind not think McCain was going to run that exact ad or something similar but stronger, over and over again, regardless of which Democrat he's against? If anything, Obama supporters who think he's going to be the nominee should be pleased it happened now, to lessen the impact when it comes later.
*** Obama himself didn't freak out. He gave a really fantastic answer to the ad. Give the man credit. It's a simple political fastball and if I didn't think he could hit it, I would have voiced the same objections to him that I voiced about Kucinich earlier in the campaign. I'm not quite sure why his fans worried (still worry?) so much about it.
**** I've been down on Pandagon's election coverage (and still am! very!) but this quote from Amanda Marcotte is applicable and so totally spot on, it sums up so *many* things about our media and how we elected Bush the first time (I still have no comprehension about 2004) so well: Your average voter has neither the time nor the energy to obsessively comb through political coverage and get to the real story behind the bullshit. It’s not people’s fault that they watch 2 hours of news a week and consider that a dutiful amount of time being a good citizen. In reality, it should be enough. They should be able to get 2 hours of entertaining but informative coverage, so that they can make a truly informed decision. It’s so obvious that this should be enough, that it’s hard for most people to question whether or not that’s actually happening, and instead they assume they’re getting the truth. Complete article here: http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2008/03/05/the-baby-back-ribs-that-took-our-democracy/
link16 comments|post comment

Politics. [Jan. 18th, 2008|09:09 pm]
[Tags|, , , , , , , , , , ]

Some Democrats in Congress want to isolate Dodd for not being a good little fascist lapdog like so many of them:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/01/15/dodd-facing-fight-within-his-caucus-on-fisa/


(hat-tip to http://sideshow.me.uk/ for the link -- this site consistently has great political links, and I recommend it most highly. Thanks to [info]donfitch for tipping me off to this site about a year ago)

***************

Very weird that my sample ballot listed "Polling Place: None / By mail". I don't remember having previously voted by mail. Has there been a major election I just couldn't miss but have now forgotten since November 2006, when I have a sure memory of voting at a local precinct? The last election here was for school boards, and I didn't vote because I knew nothing about any of the candidates, and none of them had a public statement or platform that was much more specific than "I want to give our children the best education possible in a fiscally responsible manner", so I sat that one out.

*******************

Still unsure on the Hillary/Edwards thing. So much of all this is just making a semi-educated guess what they're going to do when they're in office . . . Leaning her way a bit because I feel she'll be the best on environmental issues (compare her record to Edwards on nuclear power in particular; and this is where Obama loses any chance of me voting for him except against a Republican), and because I expect her to be at least as good as Bill was on reproductive freedom, and he was great there, even vetoing the anti D&E bill that had broad public support, for all that he supposedly was overly poll driven (he was, but on this, and stopping the rape camps in Bosnia, and on intervening to help end dictatorship in Haiti, a mess we were certainly partially responsible for, he did the right thing in the face of very strong poll numbers against him)(note that these were interventions in the affairs of other nations that actually made things there *better*, and without bankrupting the US, and that were not done for financial gain of the administration and their buddies), and because despite her stupidity on Iraq her overall Congressional record has been the best of anyone still in the race other than Kucinich, I think, and because the rest of her stated agenda basically is as good as or nearly as good as Edwards' and I have more faith in her to successfully enact it, even though her rhetoric isn't nearly as in line with my way of thinking as Edwards (and even though I do have to give him credit for greatly improving the overall tone of the debate, which I do, and even though I've known, gone to school with, and worked with quite a few trial lawyers and quite a few corporate lawyers, and I tend to very much like genuinely crusading trial lawyers, which I believe Edwards is). And honestly, if the whole thing comes down to a wash, which might be how I feel on election day, there are four things working against Edwards:

(1) "I like her better" isn't a reason for anyone *else* to vote for her, or under most circumstances even for me to -- I endorsed Dodd previously w/out any sense of him as a person at all -- but in a toss-up, this suddenly matters, plus, more imporatantly,

(2) I think she's the toughest, mentally strongest candidate out there, and that *does* matter; and

(3) the same reason I initially dismissed *all* the white guys candidacy -- unless they are noticably better, of course I'd rather vote for the candidate representing a historically (and still today, if a bit less so) oppressed group, if for no other reason than so she can prove the bigots (see Chris Mathews, among others) wrong once she gets in office, and

(4) both Hillary's most vocal critics and the kind of attacks they throw at her tend to really, really, *really* annoy me, and I shall take pleasure in their dismay.

Again, none of these are decisive unless it is otherwise a toss-up, but I think it might be. Both of them realize that dogged, determined partisanship is what won the environmental and civil rights battles of the 60's and 70's, (in case anyone missed it, this isn't just a dig at Obama's repeated call for bipartisianship, which is only going to be possible if one side caves and that's usually the dems on such things as the Patriot Act and Iraq and the drug war and tax cuts for the rich combined with service cuts for the poor and the Reagan/Bush decimation of environmental regulation, so please NO to bipartisanship; but also at Obama's expressed admiration for not just Reagan's rhetoric, but his expressed admiration for Reagan's reaction to the big government "excesses" of the 60's and 70's), both of them were both stupid and political cowards on the Iraq war vote (Obama would get credit for voting otherwise here if he'd done *anything* since coming to national prominence to convince me he would have been less of a political coward in their spot--he might have been less stupid, because he certainly has a brilliant political mind, but then a *lot* of people were wrong about how that would play out, and the pressures on him would have been very different on the national scene)(to the at least two and I think more still-Kucinich supporters out there--yes, you're right, he was there and he voted the right way and he's honest and his agenda is indeed better than anyone else's all round, no argument, and I don't blame you a bit for favoring him), and otherwise their positive/negative ratio tends to balance out about the same, if with minor differences here and there.

It would be nice if one of them would join really solidly with Dodd, though, swearing to stick by him to the better end on the telecomm immunity issue and even pledging to try and whip up support for this cause, and an appeal for turning back the tide on the rising police state, among the general populace.
link5 comments|post comment

In hopes of derailing the juggernaut, "Why I can't get excited about Obama . . ." [Jan. 6th, 2008|03:13 pm]
[Tags|, , , , , , , , , , ]

When I saw him at the 2004 convention, I said "this guy is our great Democratic hope for the future! He speaks as well as (Bill) Clinton except better because he knows when to stop! He's got all the energy and dynamism that most of the other possible future candidates lack, and he didn't vote for the Iraq invasion!"


Since then, while I still think he's the best and most charismatic speechmaker of the lot and second only to (Hillary) Clinton in debating skills, he's lost me, and has been near the bottom among my Democrat choices for months. Here's why:

(1) His support for nuclear power (see the book "Why Nuclear Power is Not the Answer" by Helen Caldicott, I think, for a better & lengthier and more detailed argument than I could possibly give if you don't think this is a big deal) and liquid coal. Both of these are environmental disasters to a greater degree than oil and gas have been, and horrible ideas all round. To me, saying you support investment in more nuclear power plants is like saying you support more judges like Scalia/Thomas/Alito, and think Iraq worked out so well you want to invade a couple of more countries as soon as possible.

(2) His repeated overtures to the right wing fundamentalists. Now, the other leading democratic candidates are guilty of this to some degree as well, but his overtures to them make me more nervous, especially backed by his refusal to get rid of the homophobic fundie "gayness can be cured" guy from his South Carolina support concert.

(3) Having skimmed his book "The Audacity of Hope", the following things from there:
where he keeps talking about the "undeniably vexing issue of abortion" and you have to read to the end to figure out that he is pro-choice--probably--but clearly has a lot of sympathy for anti-choicers,
where he seems to blame the democrats as much as the republicans for the rancor in washington despite the dems having moved steadily rightwards for years and compromised themselves to death, practically, (aside from your own observations over the years, I strongly recommend Paul Krugman's "The Conscience of a Liberal" for more details on this) and (related)
his level of sympathy for red-state democrats who vote conservatively and/or don't speak their conscience in order to get elected/re-elected.

(4) He didn't even support the filibuster of Alito . . . . Yes, he voted against him, but he knew the vote wasn't going to be enough without the filibuster, and if ever there was a time for a filibuster, this was it. Almost as bad and a lot more recent than the Iraq votes of Hillary & Edwards, plus far worse coming from someone who claims to be the most outspoken for progressive change.

(5) He *is* the most outspoken for progressive change, but there's absolutely zero indication that he's going to try to accomplish any more than the others -- he's almost never specific except when forced to be, and when he does offer specific policy plans, as with health care, they seem very similar to something one or more of the other candidates has already put forward. When you actually look at both his specifics thus far, combined with what he's done since being in *national* office, he actually seems less likely to accomplish--or even try for--real change than either Edwards or Clinton. Coming from someone with his campaign-speak, this not only rubs me the wrong way, it makes me fearful that an Obama election followed by a socially conservative, economically moderate presidency will make a lot of progressives simply quit voting.

(6) He keeps speaking in vague rousing platitudes without specifics just like that other charismatic, well speaking politician, Ronald Reagan. I don't think Reagan was a good president. And things like "hope freed the slaves" actually bug me far more than "morning in america", since the latter is just empty phrasing, while the former makes it sound like happy feelings rather than grim determination, warfare, and the whole blood sweat & tears thing was what was needed. Except for shooting-type warfare, I think sacrifice and fighting more than hope will be needed to fix many of our problems now, anyone who's studied the current situation realizes this, and anyone who implies different is being well beyond disingenuous.

That said, if he gets the nom I'll almost certainly vote for him -- not only because I like him much, much much more than any of the Republicans, but also because the supreme court appointments are just too important (tho this is another area where I have less confidence in him than Clinton, Edwards or Richardson), plus the Republicans have shown themselves too fond of invading countries for non-existent reasons to be given further opportunity. But I'd a hell of a lot rather see any of the other three top candidates.

(x-posted to "progressives")
link5 comments|post comment

navigation
[ viewing | most recent entries ]

Advertisement