Home

Advertisement

mojave_wolf [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
mojave_wolf

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

It ain't over till it's over . . . [Jun. 4th, 2008|05:56 pm]
[Tags|, , , ]

. . . and it's still not over, media and Obama efforts to coronate him notwithstanding.

She won the popular vote by every measure, including giving him all the uncommitted delegates in Michigan, he won the pledged delegate race. Superdelegate votes don't count until the convention, as they can change their mind until then.

While I still think the existence of superdelegates is an anti-democratic abomination, for probably the only time in history, they serve a useful purpose. (keep in mind I also think caucuses are an anti-democratic abomination, and they will never serve a useful purpose, and without those Obama would have been out of this long ago)

One candidate won the popular vote, one won the delegate count. That will probably never happen again. So the superD's get to be tie breakers.

For those talking about party unity and coming together in November, best not hold your breath; no matter what happens I see a huge chunk of the party taking a permanent or at least 4 year walk, which isn't necessarily a bad thing in either case, given what the party has become.

The number of people giving up just because the media tells them to and Obama declares himself the nominee is amazing. Still worse the number of people who think Hillary would be the vastly better candidate but who seem to not to have learned from 2000 what can happen when someone cares more about being perceived as a good sport than fighting to the last breath when they are clearly the vastly superior candidate. (for newer people wishing to know why I think there is such a gap in the candidates, please see http://mojave-wolf.livejournal.com/2008/03/06/ and http://mojave-wolf.livejournal.com/2008/05/07/ ) The people who were furious yesterday and now totally willing to forgive & validate the Obama/DNC primary tactics, can be downright depressing.

Worst of all? The people who don't care that she won the popular vote, and think because the fix is in from the DNC, and the media and Obama say he is the nominee even though "the rules" they were trumpeting for months to discount Florida and Michigan say he isn't, therefore we and she would somehow be doing the country a favor by marching behind the Obama-bus in Republican-like lockstep. If we're lucky, maybe we can even march next to those Obama Youth Brigade types who showed up at Clinton rallies for the express purpose of booing and chanting Obama and heckling Chelsea. (well, okay, I might march in lockstep for a block or so for the chance to put a couple of the OYB in the hospital, but I think they'd kick me out of the parade after that)

It's like all those "get on the bus now or get left behind" things that started showing up all over the blogosphere a week or two ago. Screw that. Let me near the friggin bus and I'll flatten the tires and break out a couple of windows.
link26 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

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

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