When Senator Clinton talked about Senator Obama being ready to be President, I thought it was just talk. But the way he has handled himself these past several days, I'm starting to wonder.
Wesley Clark was right. Being a Prisoner of War has nothing to do with being President of the United States or perhaps some of the people currently in Guantanamo, when they are finally released, can return to their home countries and run for the highest office. They will certainly be able to call themselves former Prisoners of War and given the new McCain rule, they should certainly have the credentials.
I only know what I've read about Senator's McCain's war record. I have no knowledge or judgment about it one way or another; but I do believe that General Wesley Clark was absolutely right in his statements that Senator McCain has not been in a leadership position so far.
But for Obama to do whatever he is asked to do by the Republicans while dissing the people who are actually going to vote for him (let me count the ways: 1) FISA retroactive immunity, 2) the death penalty, 3) the right to bear arms, and now 4) disavowing a 4-star general in favor of Bush III) is moving him more and more to the "have to vote" rather than "want to vote" status.
Good grief! He's starting to make the people who think they should support McCain seem to be smarter than one would have thought even if just on the basis of the logic of voting against your own self-interest.
What's next? Will he start cutting campaign commercials for Senator McCain?
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama. Show all posts
Monday, June 30, 2008
Monday, April 14, 2008
Hillary and the Nomination
Hillary Clinton winning the nomination based on the votes of the Super Delegates seems as wrong to me as allowing Florida and Michigan a do-over.
Hillary has run an incredibly stupid and obnoxious campaign. There seemed to be no Plan B if "inevitable" didn't work. And sure enough, "inevitable" didn't work. So she has resorted to using every means at her disposal to tarnish the Democratic Party in the guise of going after her opponent.
If, as she says, only she and John McCain have the expertise to govern the United States, what does that mean for the Party if she is not the nominee? And to pretend that Obama's calling middle American voters who have lost their jobs and do cling to guns and Jesus offensive, is offensive in its telling.
Unfortunately, people do vote as though maintaining guns, discriminating against gays and people of color, is far more important to their and their families' well being than economic advancement. If you don't believe this, then answer why the Republicans have put these issues on the ballot in many recent elections in an effort to turn out their "base?" Because it works.
Sure there are more artful ways to say this, but isn't John McCain "revered" by the press because he is a "truth-telling maverick?" In other words, the politically polite way to express himself is subsumed by his (and only his) ability to tell it like it is.
Obama may be unseasoned, but he has played by the rules. And using the Super Delegates to overturn the will of the people is also playing by the rules. But this is one Black woman who will not vote in the Presidential election should that happen.
I've thought I would be able to vote for the candidate, regardless of who "wins" the nomination. But how the nomination is won matters to me. There are some "contradictions" I'm not willing to accept.
Hillary has run an incredibly stupid and obnoxious campaign. There seemed to be no Plan B if "inevitable" didn't work. And sure enough, "inevitable" didn't work. So she has resorted to using every means at her disposal to tarnish the Democratic Party in the guise of going after her opponent.
If, as she says, only she and John McCain have the expertise to govern the United States, what does that mean for the Party if she is not the nominee? And to pretend that Obama's calling middle American voters who have lost their jobs and do cling to guns and Jesus offensive, is offensive in its telling.
Unfortunately, people do vote as though maintaining guns, discriminating against gays and people of color, is far more important to their and their families' well being than economic advancement. If you don't believe this, then answer why the Republicans have put these issues on the ballot in many recent elections in an effort to turn out their "base?" Because it works.
Sure there are more artful ways to say this, but isn't John McCain "revered" by the press because he is a "truth-telling maverick?" In other words, the politically polite way to express himself is subsumed by his (and only his) ability to tell it like it is.
Obama may be unseasoned, but he has played by the rules. And using the Super Delegates to overturn the will of the people is also playing by the rules. But this is one Black woman who will not vote in the Presidential election should that happen.
I've thought I would be able to vote for the candidate, regardless of who "wins" the nomination. But how the nomination is won matters to me. There are some "contradictions" I'm not willing to accept.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Clinton, Obama & the Blogosphere
I realized this evening that I'm deleting more blog entries than I'm reading. I'm so tired of the internecine wars being fought by supporters or thought to be supporters.
Astrologically their antipathy makes a lot of sense. Obama is a Leo (I will) and Clinton is a Scorpio (I desire). But Bill is also a Leo which probably seems like more of the same to Hillary.
I hope that people don't lose friendships over this stuff. I have issues with both candidates; neither are my choice for the nomination. But wishes and beggars seems to still be a reality.
Can't wait until September when I can read everyone again.
Astrologically their antipathy makes a lot of sense. Obama is a Leo (I will) and Clinton is a Scorpio (I desire). But Bill is also a Leo which probably seems like more of the same to Hillary.
I hope that people don't lose friendships over this stuff. I have issues with both candidates; neither are my choice for the nomination. But wishes and beggars seems to still be a reality.
Can't wait until September when I can read everyone again.
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Samantha Power
I just listened to Samantha Power on the BBC's The Interview (you can listen to it here). And I'm struck by her intelligence, her respect for Obama, and the fact that accepting (let alone requesting) her resignation was incredibly short-sighted. Power talked about things I had never heard about before, including her book about the death of Sergio de Mello in her book Chasing the Flame. I was aware of de Mello's death in the bombing of the UN headquarters in Baghdad, but I had not known that because of the horrible planning by the Bush Administration there was no way to rescue him from the rubble and he spent three and one-half hours dying.
She wrote a book in 2003 Bystanders to Genocide having been a journalist in the Balkans during the Serbian genocide against its Muslim citizens.
Hillary Clinton is a monster. I now believe that Hillary will knowingly destroy the Democratic Party if that is what she feels she needs to do to win the nomination. Hillary's new meme about a joint ticket is all words. She is willing to betray Black Americans in particular, and Obama's pantheon of supporters in general, by using the Super Delegates to lock in the nomination in her name, regardless of how many of the delegates she garners through the primary/caucus process.
Hillary has made it clear that she (and Bill and the Democratic Party aparatus) will pressure the Super Delegates to thwart the will of the people and will resort to any fiction needed in order to prevail. The fact that many youth, independent and Black Americans will not be happy and are likely to protest by staying home means nothing to her.
We all like to win, but it is hoped that we all recognize that sometimes what you win is more important than the win itself.
She wrote a book in 2003 Bystanders to Genocide having been a journalist in the Balkans during the Serbian genocide against its Muslim citizens.
Hillary Clinton is a monster. I now believe that Hillary will knowingly destroy the Democratic Party if that is what she feels she needs to do to win the nomination. Hillary's new meme about a joint ticket is all words. She is willing to betray Black Americans in particular, and Obama's pantheon of supporters in general, by using the Super Delegates to lock in the nomination in her name, regardless of how many of the delegates she garners through the primary/caucus process.
Hillary has made it clear that she (and Bill and the Democratic Party aparatus) will pressure the Super Delegates to thwart the will of the people and will resort to any fiction needed in order to prevail. The fact that many youth, independent and Black Americans will not be happy and are likely to protest by staying home means nothing to her.
We all like to win, but it is hoped that we all recognize that sometimes what you win is more important than the win itself.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Obama Still Just Misses the Boat
I haven't been here for a while - busy with my other life and then mourning the loss of John Edwards to the campaign.
So, I'm going to have to choose between Obama and Clinton. What a mess! Neither of them gives a damn about the things that are most important to me, but Obama really likes rubbing my nose in it.
An example: his latest ad for his health care plan. As you can see, he not only misrepresents what has to happen if his plan is to become law, but then he brings back Harry and Louise.
Why? Does he now think that progressives have no where to go? Are we the new African American voters? You can't vote for Republicans because they don't want you to live, but Obama (and much of the Democratic Party leadership) doesn't want to respect you.
Holding my nose, closing my eyes - but I'll be damned if I'll bite my lips!
Ugh!
So, I'm going to have to choose between Obama and Clinton. What a mess! Neither of them gives a damn about the things that are most important to me, but Obama really likes rubbing my nose in it.
An example: his latest ad for his health care plan. As you can see, he not only misrepresents what has to happen if his plan is to become law, but then he brings back Harry and Louise.
Why? Does he now think that progressives have no where to go? Are we the new African American voters? You can't vote for Republicans because they don't want you to live, but Obama (and much of the Democratic Party leadership) doesn't want to respect you.
Holding my nose, closing my eyes - but I'll be damned if I'll bite my lips!
Ugh!
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Why Edwards and Not Obama
Something I've noticed when I criticize Senator Obama's policy stands: I get attacked as a racist or someone who just doesn't get it. And then I read this afternoon a blogger describing being an Obama supporter as being a member of a new religion.
No, thank you! I don't want religion and politics to share the same space -- that's what separation of church and state to me.
But the main reason I'm supporting Edwards rather than Obama has strictly to do with policy issues. So, it turns out that insurance companies make their money by overcharging their customers, shortchanging those same customers in terms of underpaying claims, and then getting taxpayers to pick up some of the tab. And these are home and auto insurers! What the hell do you think the health care industry is doing?
So, tell me again, how is being nice going to change this dynamic? And these are the people you want to negotiate with for health care reform?
Maybe religion does explain it. Or maybe folks just drank the Kool-aid (which really wasn't Kool-aid in the case of Jim Jones' followers). They definitely want to believe.
No, thank you! I don't want religion and politics to share the same space -- that's what separation of church and state to me.
But the main reason I'm supporting Edwards rather than Obama has strictly to do with policy issues. So, it turns out that insurance companies make their money by overcharging their customers, shortchanging those same customers in terms of underpaying claims, and then getting taxpayers to pick up some of the tab. And these are home and auto insurers! What the hell do you think the health care industry is doing?
So, tell me again, how is being nice going to change this dynamic? And these are the people you want to negotiate with for health care reform?
Maybe religion does explain it. Or maybe folks just drank the Kool-aid (which really wasn't Kool-aid in the case of Jim Jones' followers). They definitely want to believe.
Tuesday, January 8, 2008
Obama and the Chamber of Commerce
In today's LA Times, the Chamber of Commerce vows to spend $60 million to defeat candidates who want to look out for the middle class.
But not to worry, Obama will sit down and talk with them. Although, according to the article in the The LA Times, it doesn't seem like talking is going to solve this problem.
"We plan to build a grass-roots business organization so strong that when it bites you in the butt, you bleed," chamber President Tom Donohue said. The warning from the nation's largest trade association came against a background of mounting popular concern over the condition of the economy. A weak record of job creation, the sub-prime mortgage crisis, declining home values and other problems have all helped make the economy a major campaign issue.
"I'm concerned about anti-corporate and populist rhetoric from candidates for the presidency, members of Congress and the media," he said. "It suggests to us that we have to demonstrate who it is in this society that creates jobs, wealth and benefits -- and who it is that eats them."
In advance of today's news conference, Donohue told The Times of his plans to be active in 140 congressional districts this year, as well as the presidential contest.
At the state level, Donohue said his organization would be active in nearly four dozen contests for attorney general and state supreme courts. Both state courts and attorneys general are involved in decisions affecting business, including consumer protection and a wide range of litigation."
So, tell me again how is Obama going to change this dynamic?
But not to worry, Obama will sit down and talk with them. Although, according to the article in the The LA Times, it doesn't seem like talking is going to solve this problem.
"We plan to build a grass-roots business organization so strong that when it bites you in the butt, you bleed," chamber President Tom Donohue said. The warning from the nation's largest trade association came against a background of mounting popular concern over the condition of the economy. A weak record of job creation, the sub-prime mortgage crisis, declining home values and other problems have all helped make the economy a major campaign issue.
"I'm concerned about anti-corporate and populist rhetoric from candidates for the presidency, members of Congress and the media," he said. "It suggests to us that we have to demonstrate who it is in this society that creates jobs, wealth and benefits -- and who it is that eats them."
In advance of today's news conference, Donohue told The Times of his plans to be active in 140 congressional districts this year, as well as the presidential contest.
At the state level, Donohue said his organization would be active in nearly four dozen contests for attorney general and state supreme courts. Both state courts and attorneys general are involved in decisions affecting business, including consumer protection and a wide range of litigation."
So, tell me again how is Obama going to change this dynamic?
Monday, January 7, 2008
Obama and To The Point - the Backstory
So what compelled my friend Marian to write the letter below? An interview on Warren Olney's To the Point radio show on Friday (the link will lead you to the podcast).
Warren Olney was talking to a number of people, including a Democratic Party strategist and two professors: Dante Scala, a political science professor from the University of New Hampshire and Robert Dallek , a Boston University history professor.
In the Reporters' Notebook section (this starts at 42 minutes after the beginning of the show) Dallek called Obama an African American, where upon Warren Olney told him of the many emails he gets disputing that designation as he is not the descendent of slaves.
At that point, Dallek not only agreed but said this is why Obama gets such support. He is the son of an immigrant, which many Americans can relate to in their own lives where as being the descendent of slaves makes it much more difficult to connect to the American public.
Warren Olney was talking to a number of people, including a Democratic Party strategist and two professors: Dante Scala, a political science professor from the University of New Hampshire and Robert Dallek , a Boston University history professor.
In the Reporters' Notebook section (this starts at 42 minutes after the beginning of the show) Dallek called Obama an African American, where upon Warren Olney told him of the many emails he gets disputing that designation as he is not the descendent of slaves.
At that point, Dallek not only agreed but said this is why Obama gets such support. He is the son of an immigrant, which many Americans can relate to in their own lives where as being the descendent of slaves makes it much more difficult to connect to the American public.
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Obama, Obama
I was going to let the Obama dig at Edwards for being a trial lawyer, instead of working to help people (what the hell does he think trial lawyers do, for God's sake - Obama himself is a lawyer) but this latest dig at both Gore and Kerry is beyond the pale.
Is he trying to make it difficult for Democrats to support him while he's pandering for Republican votes?
But the worst thing about criticizing Obama is how his supporters act. Just like those who can't stand to hear anything negative about Israel.
An interesting phenomenon, eh? What shall they name it? You'll probably be accused of being racist like being accused of being anti-Semitic or an Israeli hater.
I found this to be the case on the Democrats Abroad listserv as well. Folks had better get over this silliness. Constructive criticism is a good thing. Unfortunately, I'm not finding Obama's criticism of Edwards, Gore or Kerry the least bit constructive in that no one has learned to change the past but Obama could certainly change how he describes his disagreements and differences with others.
So far, I'm not really sure what he is trying to accomplish, but I am starting to wonder how much I will work for him or find the money to support him if he is the Democratic Party nominee.
Is he trying to make it difficult for Democrats to support him while he's pandering for Republican votes?
But the worst thing about criticizing Obama is how his supporters act. Just like those who can't stand to hear anything negative about Israel.
An interesting phenomenon, eh? What shall they name it? You'll probably be accused of being racist like being accused of being anti-Semitic or an Israeli hater.
I found this to be the case on the Democrats Abroad listserv as well. Folks had better get over this silliness. Constructive criticism is a good thing. Unfortunately, I'm not finding Obama's criticism of Edwards, Gore or Kerry the least bit constructive in that no one has learned to change the past but Obama could certainly change how he describes his disagreements and differences with others.
So far, I'm not really sure what he is trying to accomplish, but I am starting to wonder how much I will work for him or find the money to support him if he is the Democratic Party nominee.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Obama and Lieberman
UPDATE: So, I get a comment saying that Obama really didn't say that he'd like Arnold (I can't spell his last name and am too tired at 12:20 am on the day after Christmas to look it up) to be a member of his cabinet, although he did praise Chuck Hagel and Richard Lugar; fellow Senators although they are both Republicans.
Then I learn that Obama is is picking a fight with John Edwards about 527s and Unions. Say what? Without unions we wouldn't have the 8 hour work week, paid vacations, sick leave, etc. Without unions most of us wouldn't have grown up in middle class families. Unions and PACs are not the same thing and why would Obama keep giving Republicans ideas about how to Swift Boat other Democrats?
I won't comment on Krugman's discussion of the Harry and Louise redux ad because I couldn't find it on YouTube, which doesn't mean much - but I figure if it is being shown in Iowa I should be able to find it. But the crux of Krugman's argument is that if anyone has to buy health insurance, every should have to buy it - like auto insurance. Although, having health insurance does not mean that you will receive medical care. Will Obama be willing to mandate that insurance companies actually cover the people who pay their premiums month after month?
Obama says he'd pick Arnold, Lugar, and Hagel for his cabinet. What? He doesn't know any good Democrats?
This action is making me think more and more about the ways in which Obama is too much like Lieberman.
Both like to beat on Democrats with Republican talking points. Both see good across the aisle before they deign to mention the good in their own party. I mean, hell, Lieberman endorsed McCain because "no Democrat asked him!" Wonder why!
I had always thought Obama just wasn't ready yet. Felt a few more years in the Senate would help him articulate his positions beyond hope and optimism. I know I'm a cynic; maybe I'm just leaping ahead to the curmudgeon years.
I admit to supporting Edwards -- he's the only one I trust to protect my interests and the interests of most of Americans. Hillary shows something, but it isn't passion (I need to know what my candidate is passionate about) and Obama is just too nice! The world isn't a nice place. But I digress.
So, will Barak Obama be the next Democratic Senator to lose his primary election bid in his home state? If he keeps endorsing Republicans, he just might.
Then I learn that Obama is is picking a fight with John Edwards about 527s and Unions. Say what? Without unions we wouldn't have the 8 hour work week, paid vacations, sick leave, etc. Without unions most of us wouldn't have grown up in middle class families. Unions and PACs are not the same thing and why would Obama keep giving Republicans ideas about how to Swift Boat other Democrats?
I won't comment on Krugman's discussion of the Harry and Louise redux ad because I couldn't find it on YouTube, which doesn't mean much - but I figure if it is being shown in Iowa I should be able to find it. But the crux of Krugman's argument is that if anyone has to buy health insurance, every should have to buy it - like auto insurance. Although, having health insurance does not mean that you will receive medical care. Will Obama be willing to mandate that insurance companies actually cover the people who pay their premiums month after month?
Obama says he'd pick Arnold, Lugar, and Hagel for his cabinet. What? He doesn't know any good Democrats?
This action is making me think more and more about the ways in which Obama is too much like Lieberman.
Both like to beat on Democrats with Republican talking points. Both see good across the aisle before they deign to mention the good in their own party. I mean, hell, Lieberman endorsed McCain because "no Democrat asked him!" Wonder why!
I had always thought Obama just wasn't ready yet. Felt a few more years in the Senate would help him articulate his positions beyond hope and optimism. I know I'm a cynic; maybe I'm just leaping ahead to the curmudgeon years.
I admit to supporting Edwards -- he's the only one I trust to protect my interests and the interests of most of Americans. Hillary shows something, but it isn't passion (I need to know what my candidate is passionate about) and Obama is just too nice! The world isn't a nice place. But I digress.
So, will Barak Obama be the next Democratic Senator to lose his primary election bid in his home state? If he keeps endorsing Republicans, he just might.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)