Home

Advertisement

mojave_wolf [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
mojave_wolf

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

Why this election is really over, advance post mortem [Oct. 9th, 2008|12:01 pm]
[Tags|, , ]

Clearly, Obama is going to win. Those of you running around in distress that your hero will somehow fail to achieve his destined victory can relax and start drinking champagne from now until January. It's been over for a while.

The financial crunch sealed the deal for Obama, but McCain made two badly calculated risk-averse decisions and two just plain boneheaded moves that helped (this is not to say that McCain has ever been a particularly good campaigner, and in fact his campaign's failure to adequately respond to various things has made all of the above worse). For anyone wondering about bias, this is a more or less disinterested analysis, as while I certainly expect badness from the upcoming Age of Obama, I don't have much (anything at all?) invested in McCain/Palin other than I thought a victory by them would have better long range repercussions.

The first boneheaded move was to hide Palin away from interviews and forums in fear that she would be edited to make her look bad (she was, but that wasn't the biggest problem) and/or fear that she couldn't hold her own. If the latter case, shouldn't have picked her, but actually, she does as well as can be expected given some of the policy positions she has to defend in these things. The problem was that by hiding her so long, the McCain campaign allowed their opponents and a hostile media* to dictate her image, which led to a horde of people perceiving her every following action and comment in the worst possible light.

This was a particularly woeful blunder in light of the fact that Palin, unlike McCain, *is* a good campaigner and a charismatic speaker, and putting her on a more or less equal stage with McCain (or even front and center for, say, 70% of the time--after seeing the initial reaction I would have actually let her be the point person, if I'd been his campaign, while portraying him as the wise authority figure in the background who really knew what was up, making it Palin vs. Obama while putting McCain on a pedestal above them) was his best chance to win this thing. As it was, she didn't have a chance to defend herself against the "she's scary" idea that was pushed into viralness, and her every mistake (or thing that could be taken as a mistake) was magnified, and all good points were ignored or distorted.

The second purely boneheaded move was the decision to go negative late. If you're going to go negative, go negative early. Going negative late when you are behind just looks desperate and nobody takes it seriously, especially when people are worried about another Depression. I don't particularly care about Obama's relationship w/Ayers, but a *lot* of people would have if this was emphasized in June. Or even early September. Now, it just looks bad.

During the recall election in Cali earlier this decade, multiple accounts of pretty obviously true and what should have been devastating allegations of sexual harassment/groping/intimidation were raised against The Future Governator. California Democrats chose not to bring up this up until the week before the election, at which point nearly everyone who wasn't already aware of the allegations (err, factual instances of stuff that usually gets you sued and/or fired and/or a restraining order) dismissed it as desperation. Same w/the (less serious) Ayers connection (though to anyone who thinks linking Obama to a rich white guy who blew up police cars and got people killed and said his only regret was not that he didn't do more was somehow racist, please get the brainwashing cap off or go away, okay? This was a dumb move by McCain/Palin in timing -- it either should not have been brought up at all or brought up earlier -- but not a racist or a morally offensive one).

Ayers/wasn't even the most effective way to go negative -- I realize McCain doesn't like to go negative and isn't good at it, but someone working for him should have been hammering away at Rezko/slumlord issues for a long time now, and Alice Palmer and various other things, so that Ayers was one supporting part of a tapestry, not one isolated point or the central point. Put all those together with commercials where Wright was saying "god damn America!" (taking an idea from Tom-in-Paine, this would ideally be in the same had with highlights from McCain's war record) and Pfleger was making his idiot comments about Hillary and mentioning that it took 20 years for Obama to notice this sort of thing was going on right in front of him, and you've got an effective campaign.


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

Of the two badly calculated risk-averse decisions, the one that stands up and screams to be noticed is the "back the bail-out" call. I dunno who made this call or why, but it was the final nail in the campaign's coffin. Since Obama, the media and the Village (aka Washington insiders/aka whatever the fuck you want to call all these assholes who run around being either overt or covert shills for whatever gets decided on as "conventional wisdom") backed the bail-out, and nearly every leading economist and the vast majority of the general populace opposed it, here's a chance to (1) do the right, responsible thing, (2) reinforce his "maverick" image and the idea that he, not Obama, would do the most to bring about real change, and (3) most importantly, put himself and popular opinion on one side, and Obama and Bush together on the other side.

The stupid of this decision *hurts*. (I'm assuming his advisors were thinking "bad economy=Republicans blamed including us" --that's accurate-- and "pass bail-out fast, make it go away for now even if this is bad long term idea" --that part wasn't just innaccurate but turned out to be the single most obviously wrong call of this election.)

Along with that, the other risk averse miscalculation was choosing to make sure of their base on policy decisions and just hope the independents would come around. "more tax cuts" wasn't a winning issue this time around, and that should have been obvious. More riskily, M/P could have gone for really alternative energy and left Obama isolated w/his "clean coal" garbage. This could be made less risky with Palin carrying the "drill more!" standard while her and McCain should have carried on a running disagreement that had Mac pushing solar and wind and talking about the economic investment this would require in a number of midwestern and southwestern swing states, among other things. Since McCain seems to genuinely get the global warming thing, not sure why he didn't do this, but I suspect it has to do with (1) fear of losing coal producing states to Obama, and (2) a probably accurate belief that a lot of the people on the left are going to see anything Obama does as wise and anything his opponents do as evil or stupid, and therefore why waste time with them? Where I think (and this is the risky part) they screwed up is that I believe the middle is now willing to listen to sensible alternative energy strategies, and could be easily persuaded by a combination of good slogans and (real, easily documented) facts & figures.

The other part of the "appeal to the base" screw up was on social issues. This was a dicey thing for them, being Republicans, but when Palin was accused of trying to ban books, for example, they didn't get out there with the "this is bullshit lying crap from a campaign that's been pushing bullshit lies all year" stuff like they should have. (for those going "what? She didn't?" the answer is No, she didn't, not even one. Not gay books, not Harry Potter books that hadn't even been released when she supposedly did this, not any. This, of course, was part of the whole "we suck at campaigning and have bad and ill-timed responses to things" that is part and parcel of the whole McCain campaign,** but it also hurt with independent voters. Sort of like allowing Palin to be portrayed as "scary" for being anti-choice without asking why the Democrats were not only running anti-choice candidates but had made one their Senate majority leader. Or Palin being a secret dominionist despite having the same view on gay rights that Obama and Biden are pushing, except that comments like "tolerate", while heaven knows it does imply putting up w/something you don't like, are actually fairly gutsy coming from her, since it's pushing a view that most of her core constituency finds icky, while the same thing coming from Biden and Obama is either craven or actually expressive of their real thoughts, which isn't too too reassuring and makes them look more like the secret dominionists (not that they are, or that any reasonable person could make this claim about Biden. I don't think Obama is either, but having a raging homophobe the keynote speaker of his "faith and values" tour is, imo, quite a bit more signifying of secret dominionist views than saying "we should all be tolerant" or vetoing an anti-gay bill because you think it's against the state constitution.)

I see the MacPalin dilemna here--in the past, defending gay rights has not exactly been a winning issue in national politics. Obama sure doesn't think it is now. And they risk alienating their base. But they could still have stuck with their "tolerant" b.s., pointing out Jesus being a big fan of this, kept the fundies on board w/various biblical passages supporting said tolerance, and when attacked for not being forward thinking enough by the left, highlighted the Obama campaign's (and much of the Obama fandom's) hypocrisy on this issue as well. Which could have led to something really interesting and favoring McPalin, since neither Obama nor many of his supporters respond well to criticism. If some of the true believer fanaticism that runs wild on the web had hit mainstream notice, *that* could have *really* pushed people into the McCain camp. Highly risky, yes, but less risky than sitting around quietly hoping Obama did something to screw up, which seems to have been the actual strategy.

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

* For those wondering, no, I am *not* advancing the notion of a liberal media. We have a highly conservative, corporatist media that is big on conformity. They like Obama because liking him is the conformist thing to do, because the big corporations have been angling for an Obama win the whole time, and because he's pretty conservative too, in more or less the same sort of country club way that the media itself is. Less obviously scary than the nutjob wing of conservatism who chants "drill baby drill", but those people who think Obama is far left, whether they are a fan or detractor of his, are as deeply delusional as those people who think CNN is far left.

**No, I don't think there is *any* relationship between campaigning ability and governing ability. Bush ran two very effective campaigns, worst prez *ever*. Gore ran an awful campaign, but might have been our best and certainly would have been one of our best presidents ever.
linkpost comment

Life is a cabaret . . . (Pt 1) [Aug. 3rd, 2008|10:56 am]
[Tags|, ]
[mood | chipper]
[music |Midnight Love Defeat, by Plainview]

Haven't been writing much on politics because I've more or less given up on them, and I'm just too angry to write anything even remotely nice or that won't be offensive to some. On the other hand, self-censoring my blog isn't a fun way to be, either, so, just to cheer you all up:

Things about the body politic/world that I have next to no hope for:

(1) Either of the two major party candidates doing a good job if elected.

Both are basically country club Republicans. Both are highly authoritarian, both are economic conservatives who seem to have left/libertarian-leaning instincts (as opposed to positions) on *most* social issues but don't really care about them so long as they don't affect them personally and are differentiated on these things (to the extent that they are) by the different groups they pander to, which differences are blurred by this being the first presidential election I can remember where both candidates are trying to convince both liberals and conservatives they are sympathetic to their cause so that both are to some extent trying to pander to both sides of nearly every issue (for the record, I think Obama probably is to the right of McCain in personal preferences, but as both do not care enough about these things to fight about them, will *probably* govern slightly to the left of him because for either to govern where they actually would be most comfortable would cause a revolt among their bases; for those seeking cheer in this, keep in mind that I said *slightly*). McCain seems to actually get that global warming is a problem, and care, and want to do something about it. Obama seems to get that it is important that people think he cares and wants to do something about it. Both of their strategies for doing something about it involve nukes, and Obama is heavy on the coal. I don't think either is going to do shit to help things.

McCain is pandering to the pro-offshore drilling crowd, but now Obama is too, in his typical "maybe I will, under certain circumstances, or not, so no matter which side of this you are on you should trust me to do the right thing because people like the sound of my speeches and people who don't like me are racist and my opponent sucks and this strategy has convinced lots of easily manipulated fools to vote for me so far so why should I stop now?" fashion.

Those of you wondering if you should be offended by that statement, you probably should. Those of you wondering if it implies I think anyone who supported Obama in the primary or anyone who is enthusiastic about his current candidacy has the political astuteness of those people who thought W was a great candidate in 2000, yes, that is exactly what I think. I have been self-censoring a great deal to avoid offending people who I otherwise like. Done with that.

If FISA or telecomm immunity or personal privacy or stopping encroaching authoritarianism was your main issue in this election and you supported Obama in the primary or think he is a decent bet to stop this now, I think you're being an idiot on this issue, even if you are otherwise obviously intelligent. Sorry, tact ain't my strong point. The guy *supported* telecomm immunity and greater federal wiretap powers, and gave as his explanation for voting for and endorsing this bill (and completely going back on his once upon a time promise to filibuster any such bill) that we should trust him to get rid of the bad parts of the bill. If this sounded hunky dory to you, you're a fucking idiot. He opposed Hillary's bill to get Blackwater, KBR etc out of Iraq and certainly isn't talking about it now. He essentially rigged the primary delegate count through backroom deals, and along with many of his supporters continues the tactic of alleging that all who oppose him must be racist in the same way that W and his supporters used to allege that all who opposed W were unpatriotic. Yet, some of you who are really, really worried about encroaching authoritarianism are excited about electing this guy. Forget tact, there simply is no nice way to say this: you are being complete fools.

Obama refuses to criticize the Bush administration's asinine idea to force hospitals and pharmacies to hire people who won't even friggin dispense birth control because of "conscience clauses", floats hardcore anti-choice people as part of his VP shortlist, but we are supposed to think the one reason to still vote for him no matter how awful is because he is a better bet than McCain to appoint pro-choice justices to the supreme court. A horde of people have posted the problems with this logic, starting w/the "pro-choice" majority we have now already allows trap laws to an extent that has effectively already overturned Roe in vast swaths of the country, which kind of gets rid of the motivation to elect a candidate who, at best, is likely to appoint more people along the pro-trap law, Justice Kennedy "for their own good" lines, or the anti-choice Roberts, who Obama admits to thinking was fine and dandy and only voted against because one of his aides told him it would be dumb politically.

Sadly, I do not think McCain will be a lot better. The only reason I think he might be any better is the notion that the Dems will feel compelled to be to the left of him, and that he has a relatively good track record of working w/Dems. Whereas I think Obama will continue his "get on the bus or get left behind" tactics with his own party, and the majority of them will continue to trot along behind him like the gutless sheep they have repeatedly proven themselves to be.

More sadly, there seems to be *no* movement towards a third party candidacy this time, when unlike in 2000 it actually *makes sense*. So . . . we are all fucked. Personally, I think it's a toss-up for the next 4 years who will do a better job, but a McCain presidency might move the Republicans to the left a bit, and an Obama defeat in a year that should give the Dems the biggest popular vote landslide of my lifetime, has (I hope) a really good shot of causing a desperately needed shake-up in the democratic party and maybe finally getting them to actually stand up for their own values and quit pandering to people who won't vote for them anyway as an election strategy. But for the next four years, no realistic hope of a decent president, at a time when various forces undermining the economy for a long time now have finally caught up with us and can no longer be staved off w/credit, and which are being made worse by the extent to which we have been living off credit.

And on that cheery note, I must go. To be continued.

Also coming up if I ever get time, hordes of book reviews and possibly some musings on other things, all of which will be more cheerful than my thoughts on politics and the state of the world and whether we are hurtling towards both ever growing mass extinctions and the world becoming a collection of competing police states and whether we are hurtling towards becoming a third world economy, because, well, my thoughts on all those things are quite depressing, not least of which is that there still might be a chance to reverse these various trends if people would quit sticking their heads in the sand with fanatical determination.

But the other stuff will be cheerful. At least if they remain the things I am contemplating now.
link5 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

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