Home

Advertisement

mojave_wolf [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
mojave_wolf

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

In latest proof of racism and insensitivity and all round evil, Hillary continues breathing . . . [May. 24th, 2008|04:27 pm]
[Tags|, , , , ]

With regard to the latest manufactured completely stupid controversy over nothing in order to distract people from actual *issues*, which is nonetheless important because media behavior is an issue itself, and who gets elected president affects a horde of issues, I'm gonna start with links to what others have said . . .

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/5/23/213914/479 (this includes links to a lot of *other* places, so I'm not listing them separately; many are great, so I urge you check them out)

& while the post itself is just a restatement of what RFK Jr said which included in some other links, the comments here are great:
http://anglachelg.blogspot.com/2008/05/statement-from-robert-kennedy-jr.html

My own thoughts (slightly rewritten from comments I left in other places) :
What's *really* disturbing about the reaction to this (aside from the way MSNBC initially took it out of context to produce exactly this sort of reaction, and that RFK Jr's immediately coming to her defense is getting practically no play, and let's face it, if anyone should be in a position to know what she's talking about whether it's offensive, it's him) is that all the people freaking out about the comment are completely ignorant of the fact that *HILLARY* is in the Bobby Kennedy position. I somehow don't think she's calling for her own assassination.

Kennedy, like Hillary, was staying in the race while behind in hopes of building momentum and catching up (some differences--he was behind in part because he started late; she is a lot closer and actually has been voted for by more people than her opponent).

It seems pretty obvious to me that this is part of the media's continued desire to annoint Obama and get Hillary out of the race since she *does* have credible arguments to make as to why she should be the nominee, and also has less corporate friendly policies with regards to health care (NBC/MSNBC's parent makes more from its health care division than from its tv stations, for what it's worth), the private mercenaries in Iraq (she introduced a bill to get them out, Obama has alternated between opposing it and equivocating), and energy policy--there's already entrenched money in nuclear, which would always have to be centralized, whereas if the country pursues her solar power plan, there would be a lot of decentralization as many people would eventually be producing a lot (and some people all) of their own power, and the manufacture of solar panels and batteries and such would be difficult to keep in the hands of a few monopolies.

I suppose one could counter this by pointing to the fact that some Obama supporters have been blogging about the possibility of his being assassinated since, oh, December or early January, and Hillary should be constantly thinking of how some paranoid Obama supporter who hates her anyway could misinterpret her words, but I wholeheartedly disagree for a couple of reasons.

(1) Martin Luther King and the Bobby Kennedy were genuinely transformative figures who were fighting entrenched power structures, thus, there was a reason for said structures to want to kill them. Obama is as friendly to corporations and entrenched power structures as Dick Cheney--they want to keep this guy, not get rid of him.
(2) The people who are freaking out about this hate her anyway. If she said nothing they could twist for a sufficiently long time, the news story would soon appear, "Latest proof of Clinton racism--Hillary continues breathing, while the body language in photos of Bill and Chelsea, here shown eating dinner, appear to indicate they are involved in conspiracy to blackmail superdelegates with threats of violence. Obama shows usual nobility by taking high road and refusing to condemn his rivals, saying 'we have to leav open the possibility that the way they chewed their food was completely innocent and not secret code, and I don't find it too hateful if Hillary insists on breathing for a while longer yet."
link9 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

For Hillary fans amonst you, Geek Love vids at youtube [May. 19th, 2008|04:40 pm]
[Tags|, , , , , , ]

A while back, the famous Geek Love 08 (or someone claiming to be (?her, I assume?) asked me to post one of her youtube videos. I think this was about a month ago. I still haven't looked at the link, because we are out of the direct line for any wireless and cable doesn't reach out here and satellite isn't really worth it so . . . we are on dial-up at home. And when not at home, I usually don't think of it and could only watch w/out listening, anyway.

But, finally, in case some of you haven't heard of geek love/indy robin and the famous "Mad as Hell" videodetailing a lot of the sexism in the campaign so far (including some I missed even hearing about), they have a new one out called "You've come a long way, baby" that Sasha downloaded this weekend and is most excellent--more instances of sexism on the campaign trail while Hillary's "Women's rights are human rights" speech plays in the background.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke64670GkZ8

Here is the "Mad as Hell/Bitch" vid that made her (them? I dunno) famous.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcdnlNZg2iM

And here's the one in between them left in my comments section a while back that I haven't looked at yet:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLTMzpBOTnc

She has another new one, I think, called "DNC: fractured fairy tales".

For the Hillary fans amongst you (or any undecideds, or the just curious), probably none of whom are also stuck on dial-up, well worth a look.

Sorry, I still haven't bothered learning how to embed. Yes, my computer skills are best described as "barely"--I still look at comps as word processors/internet access providers w/extra frills. I are capriciously lazy about some things. Learning the ins and outs of computer stuff is part of it. I would say "this is why I married someone who taught herself how to program and rewrites our programs and designs her own buttons and extensions and stuff for fun", but I have yet to get her to do it for me, so . . . heh.
linkpost comment

Half-dead way late presidential politics post [May. 17th, 2008|09:56 pm]
[Tags|, , , , , , , , ]

I was way too busy to post anything this week, and a vast horde of political events have passed me by, but first . . . congrats to Hillary on a truly gigantic, 41% win Tuesday, all the more impressive given the sort of coverage she'd been getting the past week.

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

Going into the West Virginia primary, I said (here, at home, where no one but Sasha and the pack heard me, but I swear I did) Hillary had to win by 30 to stay competitive, and there had to be decent turnout, what w/all the "race is over, anoint the king, Obama has won!" stuff going on in Time/Newsweek/various papers. Under a 30% margin for Hillary, silly as it sounds to say this, but *because* of the coverage, I was gonna agree with Sasha that things were dire. 30-40 w/decent turn-out, still a contest, w/how much of one depending on whether closer to 30 or 40. If Hillary wins by over 40%, I said, Hillary wins this. I mean the nomination (and if she wins the nomination, I think she's a near lock to take the presidency by a fairly wide electoral margin). Granted, I was spouting #'s off the top of my head, but that was my prediction and I'm sticking to it. Quite honestly, I believe it. Here's why:

(1) I'm now over 99% certain she will win the popular vote. Neither will reach the magic # in pledged delegates and superdelegates can change their mind up until the convention, but as I said in comments over at Tom Watson's blog, the popular vote is like gravity--you can't make it go away by yipping "rulez!", and you ignore it at your peril. She figures to widen that lead in the remaining states. This is despite caucus states tilting results in his favor.

(2) According to the combined poll math and I believe all the individual polls (tho I wouldn't be surpised if Zogby was off on their own), which have mostly overpredicted Obama's performance and underpredicted Hillary's thus far, the electoral math favors her much more than it does Obama (she has, depending on where you look, between a 77 and 89% probability of winning in the fall according to all the number crunchers; the best odds I've seen for him are 44%, iirc)--she's even doing better against McCain than Obama is in straight up national popular vote #'s, but as I've been saying for months, a lot more of Obama's support comes from states we--errr, the Democrats, as I'm dropping the "we" and referring to them as "they" from now on--cannot win. Hillary is much stronger than Obama in swing states, according to all the people comparing them, and some of this is coming from people who bizarrely think she can't win New Mexico and Nevada but he can, and who think North Carolina is a swing state. Even with that bizarre calculus, Hillary outperforms Obama on the electoral map.

(3) For all that the media and the Obama crowd keep saying Hillary is a dirty campaigner and Obama is Mr. Clean, the superdelegates presumably aren't delusional or stupid (I'm staking my prediction on this). They know she has barely touched him and he's thrown hordes of crap at here that the Republicans could never get away with, and the media coverage has been all him, and . . . it's still neck and neck.

(4) Casual campaign observers may have missed the fact that even when you completely discount Florida and Michigan, Hillary has won more actual democratic votes. If you discount/wish to risk pissing off two of the most heavily populated, delegate heavy states in the country, Obama's edge in popular votes comes from independents and Republicans (this arguably should go under (3) up above, as part of the media narrative is that cross-over Republicans are going for her, ignoring both exit polls and Obama's "democrat for a day" campaign that encouraged Republicans to vote against Hillary starting back in January)

(5) Obama supposedly has a "western" strategy going, as does the DNC leadership. Unlike Anglachel, I applaud this idea, as Democrats do have a much better chance of swinging Southwestern states their way without compromising their key values (assuming they still have any of those) than they do of winning a bunch of Southern states. The problem with this is that Hillary won the swing states of Nevada and New Mexico despite those states having caucuses, which tend to skew the results about 20% points in his favor. Arizona is probably out this year, but I suspect she would do better there. She beat him by double digits in California, which, as I know from living here, is a fairly large, fairly populated Western state. He does appear to do better in the Northwest, for whatever reason, but when looked at as a whole, more people and more electoral votes go to Hillary in what is supposedly the area the DNC and the Obama camp think is his key edge. (maybe they just say this because they can't say his key edge is that he picked up a lot of delegates by showing that he would lose by fewer % points in Idaho, Utah and Alabama? I btw think all those are beautiful states and have family in Alabama and a good friend who came from Idaho, but they aren't going democratic in the fall no matter what)

(6) The DNC keeps talking about new voters and high turnout, but the highest turnout rates have consistently favored Hillary, any way you look at it. Obama has done best in relatively low turnout and best of all in caucus states.

(7) Latinos are the fastest growing segment of the population, and have no particular allegiance to either party. It would be nice, from a Democratic point of view, if they got in the habit of voting for Democrats. Latinos tend to overwhelmingly vote Hillary.

(8) The obvious bullshit of some of the delegate results--Hillary wins Nevada caucuses by 6%, Obama gets more delegates. Hillary wins popular vote in Texas, Obama gets more delegates. Obama gets

(8) Whatever they say now, the superdelegates can change their mind. Here is where Sasha and I disagree--she thinks the fix is in and they're going to give it to Obama no matter what (see here: http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/05/17/cokie-roberts-sees-the-light/ , and here: http://www.correntewire.com/race_boating_and_following_the_money and various places discussing Obama's fundraising list only being shared if he wins, including by Obama supporters at some of the major magazines). I think the superdelegates actually want to win in the fall and sanity is going to set in at some point. If they ignore Michigan and Florida in their calculations, they concede Florida to the Republicans and put Michigan in play for the fall. Hell, they put Ohio, Pennsylvania and even *Massachusetts* in play for the fall-- apparently Mass has this Axelrod client named Devil Patrick who won on a "Hope, Change and Unity" platform, and people are unimpressed with the post-election delivery. Hillary people are stunningly pissed off. Telling us the race is over and only racists and/or the deeply ignorant vote for the EvilBitchDemon against SaintObama and ignoring the actual reasons we are are pissed off and screaming "Why Won't The Stupid Bitch Quit!?" is going to continue to work about as well as it did in West Virginia, which over the last few weeks went from being a possible fall win for him against McCain to what I now would guess is a zero % chance of going democratic in the fall if he is the nominee.

While I don't think it will actually figure into the superdelegate calculations, this also is a reason they should support Hillary over Obama: http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/?p=913

Somewhat related, w/a horde of links, esp to the Marie Coco piece that I highly recommend to everyone: http://www.reclusiveleftist.com/?p=929

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

One post W.V., pre-Edwards/Naral reaction of mine:
I'm *livid* at a lot of the media coverage of West Virginia, and in particular democratic party types who keep trying to blame results they don't like on racism. It's bad enough coming from the Obama camp; when it comes from people in the democratic party, I keep wondering why they want to fix the outcome so desperately and if they really don't get how incredibly destructive it is to the party's chances in November, regardless of who is the nominee, to keep repeating this junk or allying themselves with corporate talking heads who keep trying to demonize someone who over half the democratic party and an ever greater number of independents and Republicans genuinely like and/or admire.

Carissa at Blue Lyon had a wonderful illustration of this: http://bluelyon.blogspot.com/2008/05/oh-no-nyt-isnt-in-tank-for-obamano-way.html

(the LAT was the same way, btw, if not actually worse before and after the election, not to mention they covered the WV election on page A14)

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

And then, of course, because despite the race being over the "Hillary Must Be Destroyed" people stepped up w/the Edwards and Naral endorsement the day after WV.

Re: Edwards, I'll just say I like Elizabeth a lot better than John, anyway, and add that I'm disappointed and point out that his new (and worthwhile) political venture was suddenly e-mailing people who previously had only been on either the Obama or DNC fund-raising lists. Okay, Obama gives him fund-raising list in exchange for timely endorsement. That's politics. But the DNC gives Edwards a fund-raising list in exchange for timely endorsement of Obama? This sort of thing is why Sasha thinks the fix is in and the superdelegates will break for Obama even if national polls show him losing to McCain by double digits and Hillary winning by same, because to do otherwise would require standing up to various sorts of pressure, which would require courage and spine, neither of which the Democratic party has been known for the last seven years, at least (they weren't great before, but the last 7 years has been unbelievable). Except Hillary, who is currently displaying exactly the sort of fight democrats usually lack, and getting pilloried for it. I'm w/the fighter, thanx. Maybe she hasn't always fought when she should have, but she's fighting now, and she fought for Plan B. Meanwhile, someone should check that out about the DNC possibly bribing people to endorse their preferred candidate.

NARAL--not an issue, except in public appearances to people who don't remember that NARAL endorsed Joe Lieberman, *right after* he made his famous comments that hospitals and pharmacists shouldn't be required to provide emergency contraception to rape victims.
See here: http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/05/14/the-scoop-on-naral/ for more details, including this quote from the NARAL endorsement: "Sen. Obama is the leader who can unify Americans on both sides of our issue."

Also here: http://firedoglake.com/2006/12/06/whats-wrong-with-nancy-keenan/, which has the money quote about the national head of NARAL: it's worth thinking about the wisdom of hiring someone to head an organization who believes that the right she is tasked with defending is a mortal sin.

Also, from the comment threads there, via Taylor Marsh's site:
EMILY’s List president Ellen R. Malcolm says in a press release:

“I think it is tremendously disrespectful to Sen. Clinton - who held up the nomination of a FDA commissioner in order to force approval of Plan B and who spoke so eloquently during the Supreme Court nomination about the importance of protecting Roe vs. Wade - to not give her the courtesy to finish the final three weeks of the primary process. It certainly must be disconcerting for elected leaders who stand up for reproductive rights and expect the choice community will stand with them.”

As you may or may not know, NARAL state offices across the country are distancing themselves from the national org on this one, who made the decision w/out consulting them. I gave some of Obama's quotes on his willingness or lack thereof to defend abortion rights in the comment thread here: http://mojave-wolf.livejournal.com/56126.html
link7 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

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