This is stolen from Taylor Marsh. It is certainly something anyone who supports Sen. Clinton can identify with. Read for yourself:Good grief.The comments around here are getting attention. Note to the few uninformed emailing me: I don't control the speech of others. All I can do is keep the Obama flame throwers out who took down my comment section, and eject them from my junk mail folder regularly and often. Let me also add that many of the new people who found my site have been driven away from some of the biggest progressive blogs on the web, because their commenters wouldn't allow them to speak, or the proprietors don't let them in. That's what has happened to Obamabots who try to post here, because they simply cannot control their vitriol, and I don't have time to babysit them. Many Hillary supporters are ticked off at being maligned and censored just because they back Clinton. They have every right to feel that way. As for the conversation in comment sections across the web that Obama's campaign is a "cult," well, many of us who are watching what is happening are worried. We're not in small numbers. We're nominating a president, not a motivational preacher, Elmer Gantry, or L. Ron Hubbard replacement. Read this article about "Obama basic training," which revolves around anything but issues, and you'll see why many of us recoil. That ignoring issues for personal stories is done by design makes it even more frightening. It's the reason headlines are starting to pop up everywhere that are making matters worse, which should concern all Democrats: "Obama Claims the (Thorny) Crown." Can "Obama Camp" be far behind?
But the real problem is that with all of Barack Obama's hope propaganda, the preaching and the "yes we can" mania, what many of us on the other side have had to fight off is invective so vile it requires obscenity disclaimers to share. The more involved you are the more intense the hatred on all levels. May the gods protect you if you're a woman. Nothing can if you're also someone who supports Hillary Clinton. Dare you dissect Obama's lack of policy specifics, or catch people in the act of lying or in the act of projecting Clinton unfairly and negatively, because then you're credibility is questioned, or you are called a "liar," "a witch," a "racist," which is a favorite of Obamabots, or worse, usually much, much worse. So let's just say some of these experiences hardly comport with the press releases of Mr. Hope, or the deification currently under way of him by his unhinged, out of control, thin skinned supporters. It's all Clinton's fault, yes, I know the drill.
(more)
20 comments:
BAC-
I'm gonna drop the internet bluster for a second and just be sincere here...
Through the nineties I was a huge supporter of both the Clintons. In fact I'm proud to say I saved up and my wife and me were able to go to Washington D.C. for the first inauguration. The sense of hope and possibility in those few days was one of the greatest experiences of my life.
When Hillary's Healthcare Express stopped at my state I waited for hours in the rain to hear her speak. Her eloquence moved me to tears. After years of Reagan and Bush finally we would be moving forward.
When the right-wing machine went after Bill and Hillary I was pissed. The personal attacks - the accusations - the insane vitrio. and the ridiculously stupid impeachment frustrated me to no end. The political machinations of the other side were obvious.
When Hillary was elected to the Senate I was elated. Even then it was clear she was a little more right of center than myself but I was confident she'd be there for us on the issues that mattered and the fact it drove the right wingnuts, well, nuts that she was in the Senate was an added bonus.
The last few years have been hugely dissapointing for me as a Democrat. Very few elected Democratic politicians have stood up for what's right. Our leadership in the House and Senate have performed horribly. We've gotten punk'd on vote after vote whether it's protecting the constitution on FISA, terrible picks for the judiciary or funding the war.
But the one vote - the one thing that stands out for me personally as the darkest moment for our elected representatives was that 2002 vote for the war with Iraq. And let's not play semantical games - that's exactly what that vote was about. The administration was clearly telegraphing their intentions to attack Iraq unprovoked well in advance of that vote.
The vote on the AUMF is make or break for me when it comes to picking a canditate. Voting to give Bush the authority showed horrible judgement. Refusing to acknowledge that bad judgement is unforgivable under my personal litmus test.
I say all that in no attempt to dissuade you from your support for Senator Clinton. I'm sure that'd be impossible anyway. If I haven't said it before I truly admire your zeal. It's been a long time since this cynical old man believed in something/ someone as strongly as you do and was willing to put myself on the line for it.
But I would like to try and show you that not everyone who supports Obama has done so out of some religious fervor. In my case he's the fourth candidate I've had to compromise on with my previous choices either refusing to run (Gore) or simply dropping out of the race. My support for Obama is with a wary eye and a full understanding that he's going to face a meatgrinder in the election and as President.
In the last couple of days I've read many of the posts and comments over at Taylor Marsh's blog and I have to say they've left me pretty concerned. In one of the threads there was a person said they'd vote for "McCain before they'd vote for Obama." Not a single person, including Marsh, called them on that. That is some baaadddd juju right there.
Okay, so I wrote a book here and I'm sorry about that. I'm just worried about some of the stuff I've read over on Marsh's site. I've read her site off and on for a while now and usually enjoyed her point of view but I think I may take a break from that for a few months. I think it's really important that we try not put ourselves in situation rhetorically where we won't be able to support the eventual nominee. Marsh isn't helping that situation.
Sincerely,
Dean
Hi Dean-
I can't blame any of Hillary's supporters for saying they would vote for McCain over Obama. I believe it has been Obama who split our party down the middle. Even though Hillary said, without hesitation, that she would support Obama if he won the nomination, neither Obama nor his wife, Michelle would say the same. Obama is the one who so arrogantly said that those who voted for Hillary would vote for him in the national election, but he couldn't be so sure if it was the other way around. That's not uniting anyone, that's splitting the party.
Obama will reap what he sows, division and hatred within our own party. If McCain is elected it will be the fault of only one person, and that's Obama.
You may be upset by what you're seeing at Taylor Marsh's blog...but if you look at AmericaBlog, Huffpost, and Obama's own blog...you'll see comments with hatred for Hillary supporters that would make your blood turn cold. I don't want to be a part of the party that this is turning into. I will not vote for Obama under any circumstances because if I do, I'm giving those people the power they need to continue with the destruction of our party...just like the extreme right wingers have destroyed the Republican party.
I've seen ridiculous comments on both sides and it makes me angry and depressed on behalf of the party. I have been personally attacked by Clinton supporters for being a traitor to my gender for choosing to support Obama. (An attack I find ironic given I was raised by a bisexual Women's Studies professor. I marched with NOW at ERA rallies at the age of eight, and was one of five girls in my high school graduating class to risk my diploma by insisting on wearing a cap and gown to my graduation like the boys instead of a white debutante dress.)
We liberals don't need to be fighting each other. We need to be fighting the people who have, in just seven years, destroyed our standing in the world, made our country less safe, stolen our constitutional rights, ruined our economy, caused our national debt to spiral out of control, and made baldfaced lying a routine government practice.
Seriously. The people acting childish on both sides need to stuff it. Either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama would make a better president than John McCain. Anyone Democrat who says that he/she would vote for 100-Year-War McCain if their favorite candidate fails to win the nomination is being incredibly shortsighted and petty.
Dean:
I must rise to support Mary Ellen here.
Having watched all of the debates and studies all of the issues, the ones more important to me and less so, knowing that I'd never vote Republican, I ranked the larger field this way:
1) Kucinich
2) Clinton
3) Dodd
4) Richardson
5) Edwards
I never considered voting for Biden, Gravel or Obama. I considered Biden too erratic, too hawkish, and too much a prisoner to the usurious credit industy. Gravel was just silliness. He didn't take his campaign seriously. Obama to me from the day he gave his speech at the convention seemed just as Mary Ellen described him. He has divided the party by trying to destroy it from within., using all sorts of tropes we've seen: the reaching out to Republicans based upon the issues they don't have in common with us (as opposed to the Dean/Schumer approach of reaching out by finding where common interests lay), bashing secularism, veiled and not-so-veiled homophobia and sexism, creating a campaign about nothing...do you really need me to go on?
I'm going to come right out and write it down: as an atheist by lack of faith and a Jew by ancestry, I am VERY uncomfortable with Obama's rhetoric. He has been disrespectful on two fronts: insulting my atheism and being tone-deaf on who we are as cultural Jews, i.e., we are not ISRAEL. He cannot just say he loves Israel, go out to dinner with Pat Robertson and Jerry
Falwell's ghost and be done with it. Sorry. It's much more complicated than that. I'd recommend for starters that he read Ha'aretz online.
Meanwhile, coming into the election as a Clinton skeptic, I have become more impressed with her by the day. Sure, I'm to her left on foreign policy and criminal justice and sure I'm to her right on economics and finance, but at least she has shown me a coherent set of policy positions that I can weigh up. I've done that and I find I agree with her on about 65% of the issues. I also like the way she's handled the debates and I've appreciated her toughness and gentleness on the campaign trail.
In short, I REALLY do believe she's ready to lead on Day 1. I don't know what Obama really thinks about ANYTHING because his speeches are air and his voting record is swiss cheese. How can he lead?
I have decided not to vote because I live overseas and I don't want to legitimize how few electors our "state" has been allocated. My vote truly does count less than so many people's who've done so much less research than I have.
Obama is not going to heal any wounds. If you think that Clinton will just bring the worst out in the Republicans so it's a good idea to play it safe and vote for Obama in the hopes that the Republicans will play nice, I feel bad for you. You are going to be very disappointed. Obama will be more spineless than Pelosi and Reid have been.
It's not really my problem anymore because I'm not a resident but anything the USA does affects the whole world so it is important to make my opinions known.
And I write all of that with the caveat that given the giant disparity in Obama's voting record and McCain's I will hope against hope that Obama can beat McCain in the fall.
Mary ellen-
With regards to Obama being unwilling to say he'd vote for Clinton should she win the nomination I completely agree that's petty on his and his wife's part. Politics are nasty. I haven't heard anything coming directly from Hillary Clinton attacking Obama that would justify such a childish response. It's thin-skinned.
Having said that I haven't the slightest shred of doubt that - should Hillary Clinton win the nomination - Barack Obama will be standing on that stage in August at the convention giving a speech about how she'd make a great President and detailing why he supports her. To do anything but that would mean his political career would be finished. So I wouldn't read too much into stuff said in the heat of the campaign.
Out of the three progressive blogs you mentioned Americablog is the only one I read with any regularity and I've never been to Obama's blog. Huffington Post is a mess all the way around so I wouldn't give anything written in the comments there much credence.
On the progressive blogs that are for Obama I do read daily such as Daily Kos or Digby. I'm not seeing the Hillary-hate you're talking about. Granted; there's a TON of stuff up at Kos and it would be impossible to read it all but the overall tone that Kos has taken is that he supports Obama but is going to make an effort not to let it go too far one way or the other. Digby has shut down her comments a couple of times but the invective has been mostly aimed at her.
In all of this let's also not forget that people are anonymous on the internet and, just because they say they support a certain candidate it doesn't mean they do. I think it's clear there's a bunch of crap being pushed in forums by people who have no love for Clinton OR Obama just to forment division.
Finally: it's completely up to you how you vote and for who. I'm not trying to change anyone's vote. What I would ask is that you try and take a step back if this nomination is ultimately decided for Obama and listen to what Hillary herself would have to say in this case about what's good for the country and the Democratic party.
That's certainly what I'm going to have to do should Clinton win the nomination. The war vote I mentioned above is a very personal issue that drives straight to my own personal code of morality. It's not going to be an easy thing for me to walk away from without a strong look at the bigger picture.
Peace.
Dean
Dean:
I'm not sure exactly why you ddin't address my points, but I'll address yours.
I DO believe that should Clinton win the nomination -- and if she does, she's very unlikely to run WITH Obama -- he will speak vigorously on her behalf at the convention and perhaps campaign for her as well.
I actually DON'T find the Obama blogs particularly vicious. My problem has been with the MSM's coverage of the race.
I don't want to change YOUR vote, either Dean. While I respect that the War is a personal issue for you and you've correctly pointed out her achilles heel on this issue, I'm not quite sold. Clinton had to make a few choices and she chose badly. Obama chose equally badly while he was in the Senate. In some ways, I consider his absence on Kyl-Lieberman worse than her "yes," which I very much did not appreciate. Moreover, I happen to think that Bill Clinton was absolutely right in calling Obama's "dovishness" a "fairy tale." The evidence was plain to see. Obama had a note on his website saying he agreed with Bush on the War.
Just as the War is very important to you as it is to all of us, I find Obama's "wetness" on church/state and civil liberties issues troubling. Clinton's nobody's Emma Goldma, but she's clearly for choice, legal civil unions for gay couples, privacy, and against the UIGEA.
While I know that Obama's for the UIGEA and against full legal unions for gay couples, I really couldn't tell you where he stands on choice or privacy.
I have so much to say about this, but I am so busy at work right now that I will have to respond later when I get home.
I will just say thank you to everyone for the discussion, and I will be back soon.
BAC
kelso's nuts-
I didn't address your points because I was typing a response to Mary Ellen as your post went up.
I really have to get back to work (believe it or not I have a job :) ) but I do want to respond to what you had to say-
My own personal list of candidates was somewhat similar 1) Gore 2) Kucinich 3) Edwards and then... nobody. Neither Obama - for many of the reasons you outlined - nor Clinton - were people I wanted to see win the nomination. As someone that's had if with D.C. brand democratic politicians I wasn't interested in establishment candidates. I also want someone who can fight. Before you protest that "Clinton can fight" I'd basically ask you to save your energy. Seven years of Bush have done nothing but demonstrate that a good portion of the Democrats in congress, Clinton and Obama included, are simply spineless.
As you point out Obama has made a number of comments and decisions during this campaign. Personally I find his actions supporting the gentleman who "cures" homosexuals and comments on tolerance surrounding him to be the ugliest. You don't just get along with the Klu Klux Klan.
Obama's comments on religion I don't find as off-putting as you and I am an athiest as well. Part of it is because I'm a big fan of Martin Luther King and part of it is probably because It's been such a part of the leadership of this country since it's inception that it doesn't worry me as much. The Clinton's themselves also recognize and utilize religion in their messaging.
Finally I completely agree that Obama won't heal any wounds. The other side of the aisle are scum. Pure and simple. I just don't see Clinton as the fighter that you guys do, I guess. This is a hard realization I've come to after congressional democrats have let the country down again and again. The candidates can say anything they want but both of 'em have votes they should be ashamed of.
One more thing on substance- we can make fun of the idea of "hope" all we want. Saying it's symbolic. Screaming that it's empty.
I seem to recall a different Democrat at a time not so long ago who recognized the power of hope. In fact he showed a ground-breaking video during the nominating convention stressing just that theme. It was called "A Man from Hope."
I'll read through your second post and would be happy to try and respond when I get a minute.
Ciao!
Dean
Kelso's nuts-
One quick thing then REALLY back to work.
My family and I live in one of those states that have been the cutting edge on the fight for gay rights. My wife and I have canvased, phone-banked, you name it to fight some really god-awful initiatives that've been pushed here.
I completely agree that Obama is horribly wrong on these issues. His position will not stand through the convention, IMO. For one thing it runs directly counter to the party platform and, for another, the GALA which pulls a lot of weight with the party, won't stand for it.
Just my .02
Barack Obama co-sponsored a bill to ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation while he was in the Illinois State Senate.
Barack Obama specifically mentioned his support for gay rights when he spoke recently in my hometown of St. Louis, despite the fact that Missouri is not at all a gay-friendly state.
I agree that civil unions are "separate but equal" ridiculosity and fully legalizing same-sex marriage is the better way to go.
I wish Obama would endorse legalizing same-sex marriage instead of civil unions.
I wish Clinton would do the same. SHE HASN'T.
Dean – I certainly respect your position on the Iraq vote, and I can only say that Hillary has answered this question to my satisfaction. I’m actually glad that she has not allowed herself to be pushed into saying she is sorry. Do we really WANT another general election where the Republican slime machine runs television ads every ten minute talking about how she was “for the war, before she was against it”? She is NOT going to allow herself to be “Swift boated” on this issue – and for that I am glad.
Senator Clinton is very much a fighter. I think the main evidence of this is the more than $300 million dollar campaign waged against her by the health care industry back in the 90’s – and she is still standing!! Not only standing, but a contender for the Democratic presidential nomination. I am not convinced that Obama could withstand the attacks she has, and should he become the nominee I’m very worried he will just get buried.
I have visited a number of progressive blogs and many of the comments about Hillary would make your hair curl. They are the most vicious I have ever read – and they are written by alleged PROGRESSIVES!! NO ONE would allow racists comments on their blogs, but they are perfectly fine with the misogynist comments. It’s a double standard that is completely unacceptable to me.
Jaelithe – First, welcome to Yikes! In responding to your comment, there is really no other way to describe what I am about to say in a way that would not sound ageist, so I will just acknowledge it now. I’m 54 years old. I remember help wanted ads in newspapers that were listed “Help Wanted Male” and “Help Wanted Female”. All the “male” ads were for jobs with a future, while the female jobs were mostly sticky-floor, dead end jobs. I grew up before Title IX, so even though I was a better baseball player than most the boys on any of the Little League teams I was not allowed to play because I was “a girl.” In college some of my roommates had to drive from the Midwest to NYC to have a safe and legal abortion. Abortion wasn’t legal for women when I was in college. I have watched co-workers train the younger man who would then become their boss. I am also a lesbian, and I know that Hillary Clinton is a strong supporter of LGBT civil rights. I’m very concerned that Obama would take the stage with such a homophobic minister. And some of my friends in IL are not as impressed as you with his record in the IL State Senate. It is for all of the reasons listed above that I think it’s imperative that a woman break the tallest and thickest glass ceiling left – to be elected president.
Would I support just any woman for this job? No, and fortunately I have a very qualified candidate to support. I do think I owe something to the women who have come before me – the Susan B Anthony’s who advocated for more than 70 years to secure the right for women to vote. Susan didn’t live to see women get the vote, and I don’t want to die before a woman becomes president. That might sound overly dramatic, but its how I honestly feel.
Women are only about 20% of elected officials in Congress, and a fraction of CEO’s in the corporate world. Until there is gender parity my loyalty HAS to be with the qualified woman over any man.
Younger women have grown up in a country with Title IX, Roe v. Wade, and affirmative action laws to address work place discrimination. I don’t know how old you are, but you may have lived your entire life with these legal protections. I haven’t, and it makes a huge difference for me in deciding who to support in this election.
I proudly cast my vote for Hillary this week, and can only hope at this point that I get to vote for her again in November. She is clearly, in my opinion, the most qualified candidate to lead.
BAC
BAC,
I am 27 years old. As I stated before, my mother was a Women's Studies professor. She was also a card-carrying member of NOW and a social worker. I have therefore been taught from a very early age about how much I owe to the women who came before me in the feminist movement.
As I also previously mentioned, my mother is bisexual. During much of my childhood she lived with another woman. I have therefore experienced discrimination against people based on sexual orientation about as intimately as a hetereosexual person can.
I suggest you read my recent letter to Salon to find out how dedicated I am to legalizing gay marriage.
I remember the Clinton administration's record on gay rights quite clearly. Like when Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, for example. A bill that was not only morally reprehensible but also blatantly unconstitutional. Now, Hillary is NOT Bill. But I haven't heard her coming out and saying her husband made a mistake.
Unfortunately the Democrats don't currently HAVE a viable candidate left in the running who supports same-sex marriage. The Dems don't have a candidate who supports single-payer government sponsored health care, either, which I also back.
The Democrats DO have a candidate who voted to authorize an immoral war, an authorization 23 of her brave colleagues voted against. A candidate who refuses to say that vote was a mistake.
And the Democrats have a candidate who made a speech opposing that war the very same week, even though he was already planning to run for Senate the next year.
And, frankly, you haven't had to watch your old high school classmates go out and fight that unjust war. You probably haven't had to watch a coworker sob uncontrollably because her fiance was killed two weeks before he was scheduled to come home. You haven't had to wonder whether your fourteen-year-old little brother who's stubbornly hell-bent on entering the military will wind up fighting the SAME damn war four years from now. Whether your SON could be drafted into some future war caused by blowback from this very same debacle.
So, I'll be the first to tell you, my age IS affecting my judgment in this race.
I believe both our perspectives are needed.
Ultimately it comes down to who you feel in your heart of hearts is best.
You want Hillary Clinton.
I want Barack Obama.
When you add human beings, spin, and the inevitable fact that we as people are imperfect, then things like this happen.
I'd say the very same thing to someone who argued passionately and made valid points about John McCain.
Obama has run a better campaign. He has a kind of charisma more Clinton, Bill then Clinton, Hillary. His strategy of change has resonated with the American people, or at least the Democratic electorate.
We need to support the nominee who can put a Democrat back in the White House. Period. And right now, that PERSON is Barack Obama. Forget black or white, male or female. In our desire to see our own side win, we may have forgotten how to perceive correctly.
Let's take a step back and refocus.
Hillary is disliked by many Americans, not just many Republicans. I do not believe she is disliked because she is a woman, but that she is disliked because she has none of Obama's charisma and 45 times the political baggage he does.
That's how life is. Life is not fair. Life can often be good, but it is never fair.
And it benefits us greatly to not play tit-for-tat (and I'm as guilty of it as anyone else at my blog) when advancing our own candidate. The way it stands right now, it is looking increasingly likely Obama is going to be the nominee come November, and I hope we take this same degree of energy and channel it against McCain.
P.S. I just want to make it clear that I totally get why you feel your first loyalty must be to a qualified female candidate. It was hard for me not to vote for Hillary in the primary, especially since my son was there at the booth with me. I wanted him to see me vote for the first woman president.
But, I also wanted him to see me vote for peace, and for truth. And in that case I could not vote for someone who authorized the Iraq war.
Jaelithe - no one is immune to the travesty that is this war. You have classmates, I have sons and daughters of very close friends. Kids I have watched grow up. EVERYONE is touched by this war. Obama made one speech opposing it, but has voted the same way Clinton has since joining the Senate. He has also indicated that he's not sure he would have voted any differently than Clinton did on the Iraq vote. I just don't see any difference between the two of them on Iraq. Obama has certainly not "put his money where his mouth is" since being elected to the Senate.
And PLEASE know that Hillary Clinton is NOT Bill Clinton. Yes, he threw a lot of gay people under the bus. And he should not be forgiven for that. He is, however, the ONLY president to invite lesbians and gays into the White House for a meeting, and that needs to be taken into consideration, too, when judging him.
Hillary Clinton has demonstrated her support for the LGBT community, and in return a lot of lesbians and gays are supporting her in this election.
I want, again, to fully acknowledge that my earlier comments are indeed 'ageist' -- they are born from my experience. At 27 it is very likely that should Clinton not win the nomination you will see another women run and win the race for the presidency. I'm not so sure that I will.
And Kevin, there is an underlying sexism in this race that unless you have experienced it might not be noticable to you -- but it's there.
One quick example. Just the other day a group of pundits were talking about what a hard time Hillary was having because if she is too critical of Obama it could be seen as racist. NO ONE said a WORD about how difficult it might be for Obama to say something that would appear sexist. IT DIDN'T CROSS THEIR MINDS. Sexism is still so acceptable in this culture that it's just a given for these guys -- and yes, it was a group of men talking.
I believe Hillary is telling the truth. I'm not convinced that Obama is. For example, he is saying that his campaign is not taking money from lobbyists, yet representatives of his campaign are calling lobbyists and asking them to have their wives make a contribution. What's up with THAT??
He entered into a financial deal for the purchase of his house with a man in IL that he knew was UNDER INVESTIGATION for his financial dealings? What's up with THAT??
And when the Senate voted on Iran, Obama didn't bother to even show up for the vote. What's up with THAT??
I think there are a lot of things we need to know about Obama before the convention. I can only hope that someone in the media takes the time to find out more about the junior Senator from IL.
BAC
I didn't mean to imply that the war wasn't affecting you-- only that it might not have the same primacy for you as an issue that it does for people of my generation. I think that the reason younger women tend to vote for Obama is not because they have forgotten the struggles of the past-- it's hard to forget the struggles of the past when we young women are still fighting sexism on a daily basis in the present-- but because the war is a big, big deal to us. A really big deal.
Both Clinton and Obama have made it clear that they have voted to fund the war only to support the troops. I believe it is possible to be against a war and still fund it. Much as I would like to see the Democrats play a little more chicken with Bush on that particular issue, in the end as long as they can't stop the war the troops have to be funded.
And I think Obama only said he wouldn't know how he would have voted on the war because he was trying to be diplomatic back when we were all trying to get John Kerry elected.
Trust me, I DO know that Hillary is not Bill. Many Clinton supporters seem to think that we Obama supporters don't know anything about anything because we don't pay attention to news or politics and haven't done any research. In my case, that couldn't be further from the truth. I've examined the voting records and Senate floor speeches of both Senators. I've watched and read numerous media interviews with both Senators. I've investigated their pre-political careers, their business connections, any and all scandals related to their finances, etc.
If Fox News had asked ME to name one accomplishment by Obama, I could have named ten in ten minutes. Same for Clinton.
Comrade Kevin:
You are going down a very dangerous road with this "life isn't fair" argument.
That statement can be said about so many things in so many ways.
I support Clinton and I'm not voting because I'm protesting how few electors we expatriates get when our numbers dwarf most of the Mountain West in population.
But let's go back to "life isn't fair." I'm not bellyaching about this. I know the press has always had it in for the Clintons and I know that the press loves nothing more than a center-right Black candidate. I've seen a zillion of these elections and it's always about "hope" and the "future," and never about the issues, e.g., Booker, Ford, Jr. Sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. Life isn't fair.
But when McCain beats Obama, as I believe he will, and you show up complaining about how Obama didn't get a fair shake from the press. and how it was in the tank for McCain, I'm going to have a good laugh (before I cry about the thought of President McCain).
I'm going to write to you: Life isn't fair. McCain's a war hero. Obama didn't serve.
When McCain when on the attack, using anti-Muslim and anti-Black code language and Obama didn't respond forcefully, I'm going to write that life isn't fair.
When the analysts claim that McCain's clarity was preferable to the public than Obama's vacuity, I'm going to say life isn't fair.
When you complain about how everyone bought into McCain's "straight-talking charisma" and were turned off by Obama's petutlance at having his record examined, I'm going to write that life isn't fair.
When you rend your garments about whatver has happened to the hopes of all of those newly-inspired African-American voters, I'm going to say fuck 'em, life isn't fair. They chose the weaker and more retrograde candidate based upon color. Not my problem.
When Obama finds hiding his wealth, privileged childhood, aristocratic lineage and overall softness was easy against a "woman with baggage," but it was pretty damned hard against a war hero, I'm just going to say hey life isn't fair.
When Obama's efforts to get to McCain's right on religion go up in smoke, I'm just going to have to say life isn't fair.
Your candidate is a fair-sized favorite to win the party's nomination and you have every right to brag right now. If at the end of the convention he's the nominee, I'll congratulate you again and I won't gripe about the loss.
There is an aphorism I like better than "life isn't fair." It this: "Somedays you're the windshield. Somedays you're the bug."
Just enjoy being the windshield for now because you will be the bug at some point.
Jeez, what can I say? Life isn't fair. Doesn't really bother me none what happens once Clinton's out of it. That's your fight. Wage it vigorously.
Jaelithe - I appreciate your comments and want to say again that the war is a big issue for me. I've sent "care" packages to young men I've watched grow up, to try and help lift their spirits when they are so far away from home ... and I've consoled mothers of sons who didn't come home. Every time I hear of another death in Iraq I get angry, because it was so unnecessary.
We can't change the fact that George W. Bush is an asshole, and made the decision to send young men and women into war. The only thing we can do now is elect someone we know will bring the troops home.
Sen. Clinton, with her position on the Armed Services Committee, has already started pressuring the Pentagon to make their exit strategy known to the Senate. She has said she will begin bringing the troops home within 60 days of taking office. I think she is the most responsible person to get this job done.
Time and again she talks about actual plans and strategies for how she will accomplish her goals. Obama speaks in platitudes, and now that he senses he needs to begin to get more specific he's parroting Clinton's talking points. If that's the best he can do I will support the candidate who is offering concrete solutions.
BAC
BAC:
You see how crazy this campaign has become?
Sure, there ARE voters who prefer Clinton without knowing the issues just because she's a woman, and I have a very distorted view of HRC because where I live, La Ciudad de Panama, the Clintons are worshipped because of Bill Clinton's decision to withdraw the US military and CIA and allow the country to hold a constitutional convention and re-write its constitution a la panamena replacing the PNAC document that got shoved down everyone's throats following Operation "Just Cause."
Perfect name for it, no? Why did GHWB send the US military in to slaughter 30,000 civilians to bring one random dictator whom they installed to face racketeering and conspiracy charges? "Just 'cause...Why did GWB send...aw, you know the rest!
But I digress.
I have found speaking with Americans on the phone and corresponding on the internets that most Clinton supporters will cite: her 60-day plan for withdrawal of fighting forces in Iraq, her plan to provide the congressional insurance plan to all Americans, her plan to call a mortgage holiday and "workout" period plus housing loan rate freeze combined with a Brady Bond-style re-working of the investors' CMOs into AAA-rated government securities...shall I go on?
I can take exception to some of her plans. I prefer single payer health, but I recognize the need NOT to eviscerate the insurance and drug industries with recession or stagflation looming. Sure, I'd like her to be less aggressive generally in foreign policy, but 60 days is 60 days. That's a plan. I very much appreciated how fine a line she's walked on the mortgage issue and here her specifics are fantastic. She's got a way to help homeowners' retain their homes WITHOUT either robbing the lenders or busting the budger.
The point is that like her husband, she's, perhaps, overly specific and issue-oriented. Too bad my vote would count about 1/4 as much as any of yours.
Just ask yourself if Obama, for example, even understands the idea of "Brady-izing" CMOs, let alone whether he's creative enough to come up with something like that.
I happen to believe that the sexism in the campaign has been way worse than the racism. It sort of would have to obtain that way, no? Being that Obama is an artistocrat born to a much higher station in life than HRC had been.
I try to avoid the ugly Clinton-bashing on the Obama sites so I'll take BAC at her word. And I know I don't like all the Barack "Hussein" Obama stuff on the Clinton sites. I do know that worse than any sexism or racism in the campaign has been the demonization of Clinton's strong demographic groups, all innocent players in this: Latinos, older American, the poor, traditional FDR Democrats, and party loyalists in general.
It really has been open season on those groups. But, as I have already said I won't bellyache and I recognize "life isn't fair," the best I can offer is this: I am the perfect Obama target voter, a white man, well-off financially, with an MBA from a top university, anti-war, left-wing albeit economically-literate orientation, urban, and I WOULDN'T VOTE FOR HIM WITH A GUN TO MY HEAD BECAUSE HE'S NOT READY FOR THE JOB.
See now, Kelso, it's exactly that sort of extreme attitude that might lose the Democrats the election.
You're not voting because you want to protest that your vote doesn't count enough? Your vote counts for NOTHING if you don't vote. Unless you are staging some sort of mass public protest and writing an op ed and informing the media, no one is going to know that you didn't vote because you were protesting something. People will only know that you didn't vote.
By all means, go in and vote with a write-in for Kucinich or something if you feel that vote would make a statement. That's making a statement.
Silence, on the other hand, is the voice of complicity.
Also, if I hear one more Democrat cheer on McCain because they think their favorite candidate is going to lose the primary, I'm going to start randomly splashing people with ice water. You cannot possibly think Obama would make a worse president than McCain. Unless that is you are anti-choice, anti-gay, and you support the Iraq war. Which I highly doubt is true.
Post a Comment