Home

Advertisement

mojave_wolf [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
mojave_wolf

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

Well, it is *damn near* over . . . [Jun. 8th, 2008|11:54 am]
[Tags|, , , , , , , , , ]
[music |"While the Rest of Us Sleep", Gram Rabbit]

Due to the unlikelihood of successful 3rd party campaigns and the sheer horror of the main party options, I continue to cling bitterly to my guns, errr, my !hope! that things can !change! and Hillary merely suspending her campaign and not releasing her pledged delegates means something other than outright capitulation. But she's probably really out. ::sigh::

I wrote a really good, intellectually stimulating post-mortem of the democratic primary in my head while working Thursday, but no longer remember it. (horribly long hours the end of last week, set to continue through at least the first couple of days next week, and just wanted to rest/recreate yesterday) But I do remember saying I would write a post saying what it would take for the different candidates to get me to vote for them. So here goes (in order of how much I'm inclined to like them, only includes the four candidates I know by name):

Cynthia McKinney, Green Party -- Currently only one I could vote for )

Bob Barr, Libertarian Party -- The most to recommend him among the rest )

John McCain, Republican Party -- Watch for refugees fleeing the freeze in hell if I vote (R) )

Barack Obama, the Sparkly New Unity Party -- As things stand now, I'd rather pour angry fire ants down my pants and poke out both my eyes )

Update 6/17/08 --VastLeft at Correntwire.com asked what it would take to get us PUMA types to vote for Obama and mentioned sharing it with the Obama campaign. Since I'd already written this but alas never signed up at Corrent, and they seem to find comments saying things like "I was censored by Corrent!" or "I was censored by correntwire", I am saying that here even though I know they're not censoring me, because I have no idea when my account will be approved or how long after that I get back to polblog commenting.

Key things that should be noted here if this actually gets seen by anyone of importance in the Obama camp:
(1) Obama has a higher bar than anyone else. I know none of the other candidates is doing what I'm asking of him. He/his people earned this with a helluva lot of hard work and deserve it. Also, I dislike fixes and if ever there was a fix, this is one. Even if I knew why and agreed w/the reason, it would irritate me. Since I don't know why and almost certainly wouldn't agree with the reason, fuck Obama, his campaign, the DNC and almost all elected Democratic officials. I'm furious at the lot of them.
(2) Quite honestly, for all that I find McCain's current adoption of wingnut policies noxious and don't want to vote for anyone w/such policies, if he's within 5% of Obama in Cali polls prior to the election and McKinney is polling less than 5% total, I'll vote for McCain. Call it the 5/5 rule. If he's more than 5% behind and she's polling in double digits, I'm voting for her. Otherwise, I'll probably vote for her but it's unsure.
(3) Telling me that McCain is a bad person with bad policies will not get Obama my vote. I think Obama is a younger, hipper Dick Cheney w/ties to the nuclear instead of the oil industry. I like McCain more than I like Cheney.
(4) Note that someone in my comment threads who has been an Obama supporter and Hillary hater the whole way reposted this in an Obama community he belongs to. I still haven't read what happened, because I've been called names quite enough by the Obama Youth Brigade, but my friend announced that he is now voting for McKinney and is embarrassed and ashamed. In other words, Obama people--your supporters remind some of us of such great organizations as The Promise Keepers and those dipshit fundies who hold up "gays go to hell" signs at funerals. Personally, I think y'all encourage this on purpose, but if you don't, might want to work on that, just a wee bit.
(5) In case anyone in the DNC sees this, I'm at least as pissed off at them and most elected dems as I am at Obama. They might want to check out what I have to say here: http://mojave-wolf.livejournal.com/56126.html
Seriously, guyz n galz, the only reason I'm not arguing for downticket repub ballots is because I think a Democratic congress w/McCain as prez will produce the results closest to what I want, and I fear repub nutjobs in control of all. But y'all have been pretty much useless since getting your majority, and the telecomm bullshit going on now is a fine example of it.
link12 comments|post comment

Yes, me again on "The Rulez", and "Why it's not over yet . . ." [May. 23rd, 2008|02:24 am]
[Tags|, , , , , , ]

Both the obsession with party rules and the willingness of the most rule-obsessed people to only care about *some* rules (and not care whether they have an accurate interpretation of those rules) is one of the things future historians (and psychologists) will most likely write about when discussing the 2008 Democratic party primary.

It's interesting that the media/Obama fanbase, who keep chanting that Florida and Michigan primary votes don't count because they must be punished according to "the rules" (ignoring that the actual punishment of ignoring the elections entirely is not mandated or even recommended by said rules), and who keep saying that Clinton must be stopped from destroying the Democratic party by actually counting votes, because obviously the millions of votes cast in those states mean nothing when compared to the DNC rulebook (again ignoring that other states which broke the same rules but where Obama was not assured of getting his ass kicked were not punished in the slightest) have changed the magic # of delegates needed to get the nomination, by subtracting half the Michigan/Florida total. This from the people who keep shouting about Clinton trying to change rules in midstream, and how this is proof of her Evil Cooties.

The reality is, neither candidate will have enough pledged delegates to win the nomination, unless the rules are changed in midstream. Which leaves it up to the superdelegates. Who, according to the rules, could all back Pee Wee Herman, if they want. Or decide that Al Gore is clearly the person most people *really* would have voted for. Or decide "hey, let's settle this whole race/sex thing by going w/Cynthia McKinney!" Or, more likely, being composed primarily of Democratic party insiders, they could all vote for Tony Stark because they liked Iron Man, at which point people all over the country would run to look up what it says about voting for fictional characters in the DNC rulebook, and fistfights would break out on the convention floor between people who thought this meant they'd voted for Robert Downey Jr and people who thought the movie was a true story.

So, there is no mandate that the superdelegates vote for either the candidate with the most pledged delegates (that will be Obama) or the candidate with the most actual people voting for her (that will be Hillary).

For those who think there is anything remotely credible to the new Obama campaign talking point that the popular vote is no more relevant than the height of the candidates (yes, to those of you outside the US, this argument is being made), or mistakenly thinking there is something (or even could reasonably be something) requiring the DNC to not count popular votes from some states, when they don't officially count popular votes anyway (probably because delegates and popular vote totals have always previously matched up because the primaries are never this close), I offer, from comments to Violet Socks question, "Why does the guy with the second-most votes keep acting like he’s going to be the nominee?" http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/?p=937,

Violet answering someone who says the popular votes from Michigan and Florida don't count:

"Yes, of course Hillary has won the popular vote. Any penalty the DNC imposes on the convention delegations from those states has nothing whatsoever to do with the popular vote. The populace voted.

As for the absurdities of the delegate count, if anybody hasn’t seen it, I recommend Cokie Roberts’ column from earlier this month:

'Since Feb. 19, seven states have voted. Clinton has won four — Pennsylvania, Texas, Ohio and Rhode Island —building up a popular-vote margin of 483,000. Yet her total gain in delegates was exactly five. In Texas, she won by more than 100,000 votes, but because of that state’s ridiculous rules, she actually came out five delegates behind.

How can that outcome possibly be fair? How can it possibly benefit the party?

Wait, it gets worse. Obama built up sizable margins in small states that Clinton was foolish enough to concede. His delegate advantage in Idaho, Kansas and Louisiana — three states that will never vote Democratic — was a total of 38. By contrast, Clinton handily won three large swing states — Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Ohio. And yet, because of party rules, her combined marginal gain amounted to 28 delegates.' "

Hillary is the choice of the majority of Democratic voters.
link2 comments|post comment

Given the overall mood of the political blogosphere . . . [May. 7th, 2008|01:31 am]
[Tags|, , , , , , ]

I posted this as a comment over at Anglachel's blog earlier, thought I'd repost it here (for a more positive take, see here: http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27616) (from an electoral horse-race point of view, NC was about what I expected and Indiana closer than I expected but not a disaster, *but* quite a few people seemed worried that she might drop out and *all* the late night news I saw was promoting this angle, which could have been just their usual in-the-tank-for-Obama-ness, but just in case, the following)

*****

I certainly count as a voter who initially would have been willing to support Obama in the fall who has been alienated by his campaign to the point where I almost certainly will not vote for him in the fall should he be the nominee.

I started out enthusiastic about him as my tentative second choice to my tentative first choice Hillary, then he dropped to my *last* choice among the democrats when I learned of his support for nuclear power, but I still would have voted for him and hoped someone changed his mind on this issue. His early campaign made me uneasy, but after Iowa I thought he would probably get the nomination, and read "The Audacity of Hope" in hopes of getting a better feel for him. This caused me to actively dislike him, but I *still* would have voted for him in the fall over a Republican, if he'd run even a Kerry-level campaign.

South Carolina finished this. Portraying two lifelong civil rights supporters as racists was unforgivable, and I made up my mind not to vote for him then. I didn't think it would be a good idea to announce this at the time, because I still thought Hillary would win over the long haul, media bias notwithstanding. I still think she *can*, but I've seen a number of people in blogs tonight who worry that she's conceding, so I figure now is the time to detail my reasons Hillary should stay in for the good of the party that she cares about more than I do(I care about issues, not parties, and have already switched to "decline to state" because I've been pissed off at the dems for years now), and why the superdelegates should start encouraging her instead of trying to chase her off, unless they want a McCain presidency, because I'm not voting for Obama in the fall.

I have a graduate degree and used to work in the entertainment industry, am 42 and male, and consider myself to the left of the democratic party on most things, so I should be in his demographic, but his campaign has appalled me, essentially painting everyone who didn't vote for him as being either low information voters--though both Clinton and her supporters have been a lot better informed and a lot quicker to discuss specific policies than Obama supporters in every online or in-person discussion I've seen--or as racist, even though he has faired even worse among latino and asian voters than among whites.

Combine support for nuclear and coal over solar as alternative energy sources with a deliberately misleading, race-baiting, misogynistic campaign to equal anything Karl Rove ever did, with the way Obama screwed over Alice Palmer, his asinine behavior about not wanting to be photographed with Gavin Newsom at a fundraiser Newsom threw for him, and a book in which he repeatedly insults democrats and liberals while praising Republicans, and there's no way I'm voting for this guy.

I don't trust him on reproductive freedom, health care, social security, putting the interests of workers, consumers and small businesses ahead of big corporations, getting the privately funded mercanaries out of Iraq, or telecomm immunity. He's on record as taking a position that appalls me on alternative energy, which I consider to be arguably the single most important issue facing us today--both because of how it impacts humans directly and because of the its impact on the future of the entire planet, voted for the horrible Bush/Cheney energy bill, and is on record saying he had never given environmental issues much thought. Given his history of stabbing people in the back, his campaign's repeated lying and misinformation during this campaign, and that his supporters basically deliberately cheated at a whole bunch of caucuses in a way that should have had the whole democratic party screaming bloody murder and a whole bunch of his supporters in jail, there's nothing he could say to convince me I should trust him on, well, anything. I'd as soon vote for Jay Rockefeller (a devoted supporter of Obama who is the democrats most single-minded supporter of telecomm immunity).

If Obama gets the nomination, I shall devote myself to building grassroots support for particular issues and to trying to build up a third party of some sort.

*****

I forgot to include this over at Anglachel's, but let me add that I feel an Obama presidency would validate this sort of campaign among democrats, and that all by itself would keep me from voting for him unless I felt he would be *vastly* better than McCain. And I don't. I think McCain as president will suck because his policies suck, but I think Obama as president will suck nearly as bad, and the gap between them is insufficient to make up for just how much this campaign has pissed me off.

Also: I don't give a shit about the democratic party. The democratic leadership have proven themselves craven fools over and over again since 2001, and this election cycle has emphasized the "fool" part, with a hefty dose of misogyny that is far worse than I had realized. I vote based on issues, not parties, and they're pretty much useless on most of the issues I care about. "Hope" isn't an issue--everyone has hopes of some sorts. "Change" isn't an issue -- Bush was a helluva change from Clinton, but that didn't make him good. "unity" is an issue, but not one that appeals to me. All the civil rights progress we've made in the last 50 years has come about because of bitterly partisan fighting. The New Deal came about through dogged partisanship. Environmental safegaurds were the result of my side winning partisan battles. Unity? (or at least overwhelming one-sided agreement) Brought us the patriot act and the invasion of Iraq. So fuck unity.
link25 comments|post comment

Links and stuff [Apr. 20th, 2008|09:47 am]
[Tags|, , , , , , , , , ]

First, several birthdays missed -- inamac, savepureness, and I believe but am not sure about a couple of others . . . Happy birthday to you all! And I'm sorry I didn't say it at the time.

In advance-- happy birthday to everyone having one in the next month in case I forget!

Melissa McEwan on how women are usually portrayed in movies and the relationship of this to people telling her they can't take her blog seriously if she blogs about personal stuff:
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/04/feminism-101-how-are-we-supposed-to.html

(also Melissa nominated for Andrew Sullivan's "Michael Moorer" award for "bitter and divisive left wing rhetoric" here http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/04/its-honor-to-be-nominated.html )

A cool new liberal blog that's heavily pro-Hillary:

http://nomoreapples.blogspot.com

Sasha found this a while back but I've been overwhelmed w/things and just checked it out for the first time this morning. Now I wish I'd been reading it regularly for the past month. Highly recommended for Hillary supporters or those who aren't but wanna think about it. =)

For Obama supporters, btw, saying "he has detailed plans on his website" has been sort of joke among Hillary supporters for a while now. It is not an answer to a policy debate, or even a debate about his plans since (1) It's a big website and we don't really want to go roaming around looking for whatever you're talking about unless you give a quote and/or link to a specific part, and (2) He has previously apologized for things on his website by saying he didn't write it or monitor it and didn't know the stuff was there.

From the always excellent eriposte, http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/012366.php, on pretending to be Troubled by his opponent for behaviors that have long been the defining characteristic of his own campaign is pretty silly. After all, not only does Sen. Obama have an impressive record of repeatedly attacking Sen. Clinton using classic, offensive and usually false Republican talking points, prior to Sen. Edwards' withdrawal from the race it used to be widely known among some of the same people who are now his supporters that Sen. Obama had an impressive record of using false right-wing talking-points against fellow Democrats. I have pointed this out many times previously on a variety of topics and for the record, I am going to point this out again, given the latest outburst of crocodile tears and false indignation from his campaign and some of his supporters in the blogosphere. Here is just a sample of the large number of Republican-style attacks from Sen. Obama or his campaign against Sen. Clinton (and sometimes President Clinton) just in the past 8-10 months:

Various people on the not always that leftist (i.e. Kos--who's said himself he's about electing democrats, not liberals, used to be a Republican and has recently described himself as a libertarian) types who seem to wish Hillary supporters to leave the democratic party . . .
http://tomwatson.typepad.com/tom_watson/2008/04/small-tent-demo.html for a more polite tone, and for something a little harsher and more in line with my own temperment . . .
http://anglachelg.blogspot.com/2008/04/party-crashers.html
These are the same people who trashed Obama as part of the Clinton/DLC cabal in 2006. Was there a lick of truth in their words about him then? No. Is there any greater honesty in their adulation of the Precious now? Ha! They like Obama for the same reason Karl Rove likes the guy - he's their Clinton killer. Edwards didn't do it, so chuck that loser and his diseased wife (how dare she say anything nice about Hitlery! Just shows Elizabeth was always a pandering bitch...) over the side 'cuz now we got us some real ammo against those miserable HillBillies, yessiree Bob!


Talkleft on the slanted debate:
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/4/19/103112/835

For those not clicking, I concur entirely -- yes it was slanted against Obama. Which makes it the first debate out of how many? And Hillary kicked ass even when it was her against everyone month after month after month, and the Obamabots told all of her supporters to quit whining. Now, the tables were turned, Obama didn't handle it nearly so well, acts like a complete ass afterwards, she jumps many points in a few days in every national poll, and his fans can think about that whole whining about media bias thing whilst ignoring that the one poll where he suddenly does better is getting more attention than all the ones where he does worse, and the Obama endorsing LA Times made the unfair-to-The-Precious* debate their center-of-front-page story in Friday's paper. And re: the polls -- We'll soon see which are more accurate. I'm going w/SUSA, btw, they've been the most accurate so far, tho policy matters more than polls, regardless.

* -- "The Precious" as a term for Obama comes from the always-interesting Anglachel. While I don't know the genesis, I'm guessing it has to do with his very existence or sparkling charisma or something tending to warp and delude the thinking of the vast majority of his supporters. Yes, I know there are sane ones--I quote Armando at TalkLeft frequently, and a bunch of you are on my f-list. Similarly, there were strong-minded people better able to resist the influence of the One Ring, so the analogy holds. =)
linkpost comment

Swim Out Past the Breakers, and Watch the World Die (pt 2) [Mar. 27th, 2008|09:08 am]
[Tags|, , , , , , , , , , , ]

No time this morning to discuss recent campaign thoughts in depth, so I will point to some blog entries elsewhere that sum up some of the things going through my head, w/teaser quotes for some. Keep in mind when reading these quotes, which I very much like, that a year ago I was wondering (in this journal, for those who don't believe me and want to check) what the hell Amanda and Melissa were doing on the Edwards campaign when we had great candidates like Hillary and Obama out there. (I'm not the only one to switch views of The Golden One, btw -- in his book which I can't recommend strongly enough as one of best books on the intersection of politics and economics *ever*, Paul Krugman several times refers positively to Obama and his former, now disavowed universal health care plan, and several times takes swipes at Hillary; in no instance is this position reversed in the book, which I believe was completed last summer)

http://anglachelg.blogspot.com/2008/03/note-to-commenters.html
"Obama's deliberate deployment of false claims of racism is going to affect politics long after the campaign is over, no matter the outcome. My arguments are about the tactic, the effect it is having on this specific campaign and what the longer term effects of instrumentalizing race will be on the Democratic Party."

http://anglachelg.blogspot.com/2008/03/when-wishes-come-true.html
"The interesting number to me is the steady increase in the number of Hillary Democrats who are taking the brutal treatment of their preferred candidate and the deliberate and cynical disenfranchisement of Michigan and Florida very seriously, enough that they will not vote Democrat in November. It is the combination of the two that has created the backlash conditions, I think. If The Golden One was simply getting more votes in the same contests, then, yeah, sucks to be on the losing team, but the votes are the votes. However, the fact that the inclusion of these two states changes the math completely and that the votes are being blocked by Obama and that the press is brutalizing Hillary and making shit up and that we need both those states in our column come November and, well, yeah, we're getting pissed."

http://anglachelg.blogspot.com/2008/03/domestic-violence.html

In which the blogger takes offense to the campaign being called "a lover's quarrel" by one of the a-list male bloggers and suggests some more appropriate references, complete with very thorough analysis. For the record, I don't just realize the controversial nature of each of her three metaphors, I'd go so far as to say two of them are wrong-headed and one of them made me flinch and squirm, but her analysis of the overall situation makes it worth linking to.

Related to all this, and a little older, there's this:

http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2008/02/feminism-101-calling-out-fellow.html


There are actually a lot more blogs on the elections on a lot of other different subjects (talkleft had a bunch, esp one on how the unchanging media narrative regardless of what happens is shaping both of the campaigns in a bad way, http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/26/10312/3012), left coaster, blue lyon, corrente, but this is something that has been preoccupying lately and the run of great posts by anglachel had me thinking I must post on the subject, or at least link them.
linkpost comment

Is anyone surprised I have a post on Wright and "the speech"? [Mar. 18th, 2008|11:11 pm]
[Tags|, , , , , ]

( You are about to view content that may not be appropriate for minors. )
link7 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

Go Hillary! [Feb. 23rd, 2008|06:15 pm]
[Tags|, , , , , , , , ]

Okay, haven't been posting the last couple of weeks, as death + prolonged sickness + mourning does not necessarily = prolific journaling, but really feel like I've dropped the ball in not trying to post more and in more places on the campaign. One of the things that has me energized enough to write is enthusiasm over Hillary finally fighting back against what is without doubt the most repugnant & most divisive Democratic campaign of my adult life, one that echoes the sort of campaign Karl Rove has made a habit of directing on the Republican side with its deliberate smears and the extremity of its distortins, made especially galling that said ultra-sexist campaign is supposedly one of "unity". Also energized by anger over the snippet I heard of Obama's response, which is dishonest and deliberately misleading on a bunch of levels (btw, should I start posting frequently again, there are gonna be more posts like this one; if the Obama supporters on my f-list -- who along w/bloggers like Big Tent Democrat remind me that there *are* sane Obama supporters scattered amidst the dreck -- want me to filter them from posts like this, just let me know; I swear I still like you or you wouldn't be there). Anyway, as someone else said, a lot of us signed on to this campaign in part because we think she's a fighter, and as much as we understand she actually cares about party unity (unlike her opponent, who only seems worried about unity w/Republicans), it's about fucking *time* she hit back, especially given that he and his campaign have been lying sacks of Karl Rove on so *many* things for so long, from the details of their competing plans on health coverage & misrepresenting her stance of NAFTA as in this instance, to the truly evil charges of racism he leveled against her and her husband, to, this really funny thing where he was on some talk show and completely denied saying he was ever for single payer healthcare, and when the host played him a clip of him saying it, he said he couldn't comment because his audio feed wasn't working (keep in mind, I'm *for* single payer health care, and a lot more committed to it than Obama is, but this is relevant both to his honesty and because he called Hillary a liar for pointing out that he had said this, which obviously kinda messed with his attacking her plan from the right), or his lying (again!) when he claimed he shepherded extra nuclear power safegaurds through congress, when (1) the bill never made it into law, and (2) when it was in committee, he helped take out all of the safegaurds he takes credit for having put in, which of course wouldn't have anything to do w/nuclear power giant Exelon being Mr. "I don't take money from lobbyists" 4th biggest campaign contributor.

Anyway . . . I actually planned to post a friends-only catch-up-on-things entry when I finally had energy to write again, so rather than further analysis on this, I'll just link to a bunch of places (giving more than I need to because I happen to like a lot of these blogs, and want to provide a reading alternative for those who find the MSM and places like Kos with its "Obama Messiah" tendencies to be the only sort of thing they're seeing):

http://rakesprogress.wordpress.com/2008/02/23/an-angry-hillary-confronts-obama-over-health-care-nafta-distort
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/2/23/145919/436
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/2/23/15910/4351
http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=27079
http://www.correntewire.com/finally_but_too_late (w/full video clip!)

& good blogs in general that I haven't highlighted before:
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com
http://www.theleftcoaster.com
http://www.dailyhowler.com
http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com
http://www.digbysblog.blogspot.com/
http://bluelyon.blogspot.com

Meanwhile, places like Pandagon & most of Huffpost & Kos continue to crusade for a guy who is getting a fifth of his vote in Texas from Republicans who plan to vote Republican in the general election (this may be the case elsewhere, but in the Texas poll they actually were asked and admitted it), has a pro-privatization guy as his social security advisor (hey, Bush couldn't get it done, but if we get a democrat to do it . . . ), chose Joe Lieberman as his mentor in the Senate, whose latest book mostly could have been written by Lieberman & talks about women's reproductive freedom as an "undeniably vexing issue", whose campaign continually praises conservatives (including the likely nominee for the Republican presidential primary) and preaches reconciliation with them even while it has no trouble playing slice -n- dice with his Democratic opponent and no problem using sexist slurs against her . . . (& if you don't think "periodically feeling down" or "claws come out" were sexist attacks, we ain't speaking the same language & you probably thought the Shuster bit about "pimping out Chelsea" was perfectly fine & don't see a pattern here, and well, not speaking the same language sums it up)

Anyway, have been completely furious about the media coverage for weeks; not saying her campaign has been perfect (hell, from having hired Mark Penn in the first place to grossly overpaying a whole bunch of consultants who are mostly worthless to picking the obvious loser plagiarism issue and giving the msm a chance to focus on that and ignore her attacks on Obama's health care plan and other issues of substance and their very different views of what is keeping a progressive agenda from DC, her reality-based one that it is entrenched corporate and Republican interests, and his that it is some kind of racial/regional/religious divide--I guess that would be too complex for the msm newscasters little brains, or maybe it just wouldn't promote the candidate they like to missing the last FISA vote despite having been somewhat good on the issue previously, I say somewhat because I can't forgive *any* of the dem candidates for not having highlighted this issue) or that she is perfect (yes, I remember her war vote and think it was inexcusable, tho attacks on that front would be a lot less making me think "grossly unfair double standard" if a lot of the people doing it hadn't been Edwards supporters, or if Obama had shown the tiniest hint of having the political courage to do this if he'd been in the national senate then; so far, he's shown far less courage and leadership than her, as evinced by her leadership on the Plan B issue and her willingness to filibuster Alito), but the unfairness of the coverage has been Bush/Gore or SwiftBoat/Kerry level. I'm still waiting to hear "Hillary Clinton runs into burning building and saves orphans in cheap political stunt; Bill Clinton arrested for assault after angry frat boys wearing "Obama Messiah" & "C.U.N.T." t-shirts storm the podium and put him in hospital as retaliation for the former president's divisive attacks on the charismatic Obama's inspiring statement that perhaps the Clinton campaign deliberately set the electrical fire to derail the message of hope and change."
link14 comments|post comment

navigation
[ viewing | most recent entries ]

Advertisement