Home

Advertisement

mojave_wolf [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
mojave_wolf

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

Who to vote for? [Oct. 9th, 2008|01:30 pm]
[Tags|, ]

So, I was all set to vote for McKinney and the green party. First all woman ticket, first all person of color ticket, and for all that I'm not entirely on board with their platform, one of the only two liberal/progressive choices available, and I'm *still* pissed at Nader about 2000, along with getting a general feeling that he's in this more for notoriety than to accomplish anything.

Now, McKinney turns out to be either someone with horribly poor judgement, just plain batshit crazy, or both:
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/02/mckinney-accuses-government-slaughtering-prisoners-dumping-bodies-katrina/

(yeah, I know, questionable source and all, but this story doesn't seem to have been fabricated by them)

So, what am I left with? Of the two major parties, I still view a Republican victory as the best possible outcome this time (for reasons described previously having nothing to do with Republican policies), but really don't want to vote for that party or those policies. Nonetheless, I had about made up my mind to do so in response to the tactics used against Palin (though I haven't fully discarded the McKinney option yet) when I saw this:

http://guerillawomentn.blogspot.com/2008/10/ralph-nader-calls-out-bill-maher-for.html

Like the author of the post, I waited *years* for someone to do that, before I completely gave up on watching Maher (I think his absolute worst example of sexism was when he suggested girls pulling up their tops at mardi gras had no business complaining if they were raped; that was probably when I quit watching, however long ago that might have been--it was *years*; I restarted briefly for a few months and quit again for similar reasons)

So, Nader back in the running. I shall decide which of those three options later. Not that it matters, as none of them are going to win.

PS--there has been yet another round of "opposition to Obama must be rooted in racism" bullshit. If anyone thinks that is why I'm not voting for him, or that McKinney as a second choice to Hillary is insulting to African Americans, please let me know so I can drop you from my f-list. Seriously.
link5 comments|post comment

Hillary & the wage gap [Apr. 20th, 2008|10:55 am]
[Tags|, , , , , , , , ]

& saving the best, more substantive, less political politics for last, an article about Hillary and her efforts to combat the wage gap:
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/04/16/action-seventy-seven-cents/
Senate Bill 841 (S. 841) - the Fair Pay Restoration Act was introduced in the Senate by Hillary on April 19, 2005, and currently has 18 co-sponsors.

Senate Bill 766 (S. 766) - the Paycheck Fairness Act was introduced in the Senate by Hillary on March 6, 2007 and currently has 22 co-sponsors.


For those wondering what the wage gap is . . .
In 2007, white women earned 77 cents for every dollar a white man makes. For women of color, the wage disparity is even worse; African American women earned 68 cents and Latinas earned 57 cents.
link1 comment|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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One of the other things I've been meaning to get to . . . [Nov. 17th, 2007|08:57 pm]
[Tags|, , , , , , ]

I doubt anyone reading this journal is a big Ron Paul supporter, but since he's increasingly gaining traction for having basically an overlapping set of virtues w/Dennis Kucinich but some vices Kucinich would never have in a million years (i.e. why you shouldn't be a Ron Paul supporter), I'd like to offer the following things about Paul that *never* get covered in the media:

He's anti-choice.
He's pro-school prayer.
He's a homophobe.
He's racist.

(thanks to Pandagon for those last two; I had inferred the racism from his immigration stance, which otherwise isn't very libertarian, but hadn't realized how blatant it was, and hadn't known about his homophobia)

If you're a libertarian, whatever that means in our current politics, one would think these things would turn you off of him and send you elsewhere.

If you're a progressive, Kucinich is at least as outspokenly in favor of getting us out of Iraq faster and more completely than I think entirely wise as is Paul, also publicly opposes the monstrosity that is mis-named "the war on drugs", and is otherwise infinitely superior in every way.

Seriously, the only things Paul has going for him is his opposition to the Patriot Act and the WoD and Iraq. If you're progressive and you think Paul is dead on w/all these issues, and that they are sufficiently important to trump all else, for the sake of all that is, beat the drums for Kucinich, not Paul.
link12 comments|post comment

navigation
[ viewing | most recent entries ]

Advertisement