Amazon.com Widgets

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Where Obama Has Already Won Change: Campaigning and Campaign Staffs

One thing I wholeheartedly admire about Senator Barack Obama and his presidential campaign: his willingness to change the nature of campaigning, campaign teams and transforming presidential campaigns overall.

While I still think that all things consideredere, Hillary would make the best president for now, I think there is much to be admired about (and learned from) Senator Obama and his campaign management. I would love for him to be President — in eight years, after two terms of Hillary (or should the unthinkable happen) in four years if the repugs win in '08 (it is the dems' election to lose and they will have to screw the pooch royally in order to lose). I still prefer a Hillary-Obama in 2008 ticket. I still do not think the 'super delegates' should be awarded to Hillary in back-room machinations if the majority of democratic primary/caucus voters have chosen Obama.

His team has out-thought, out-smarted, out-strategized and out-campaigned team Hillary almost every step of the way since things really got underway. They are adaptable and innovative; capable of changing their strategies and making the needed changes. They actually had a plan and strategy beyond Super-Tuesday. Clinton did not. Clinton's team apparently kept little notice of all its expenditures nor the effect of Soliz-Doyle on 'outsiders' — perhaps that's a willingness to delegate and not micro-manage, but that's delegation at the expense of Senator Clinton herself (too much Bill, too much McAuliffe, too much Carvile). And it ultimately reflects poorly on her decision to go with the 'ole-boys' old-style/yesterday's politics masterminds and in that regard, gives me serious pause about Clinton's choices, i.e. old vs. new, stale vs. innovative, hope vs. ... not hope? Not feeling the love today.

More to come...a work in progress.

Footnote: Without a doubt, one of the worst things about the Clinton campaign: Howard Wolfson. The second worst thing: Mark Penn. Ugh. If they think accusing Obama of plagiarism is going to score many points; I simply can't see it. This just seems petty, superficial and stupid. And desperate. Not a good sign. (Talk about 'Old School Politics' — blech.) If that's the best criticism of Obama they can come up with, grabbed at straws have more heft. Double Ugh.




Technorati Tags:
, ,


Labels: , , ,

Friday, February 15, 2008

Clinton & Obama Collectible Limited Edition Pins for a Good Cause

If you're a collector, especially of Campaign, Election, Historical, Presidential & Political Memorabilia and Collectibles, and if you peruse various sites such as ebay sellers for campaign or political collectibles and auction items, you might like to see a couple that caught my eye for Hillary and Obama.



The great thing about these limited edition collector's item political buttons/pins is that all proceeds are donated to the charity, Harvest of Hope Foundation. Right now you can make really low bids on these two cool presidential collectible items! Currently as of this posting they're offered for less than $2.00 each. You can also find the incredible limited edition and signed/autographed Shepard Fairey Obama Obey/Hope/Change/Transformation Posters that are the big buzzz these days!


FREE EBAY MEMBERSHIP


If you aren't an ebay member yet, you can easily and quickly sign up and get your own free ebay membership here — you don't need a credit card to sign up and there are no charges or fees — I repeat: ebay membership is totally free (you do need an email account).
Once you sign up for your free ebay account, you can create a watch list of your favorite items.

free ebay membership no fees or credit card required







........................


Technorati Tags: , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,


Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Wednesday, February 13, 2008

The Deeply Racialized Psycho Sexual Schizophrenic Anxieties of White Media Types

Wouldn't it be a fascinating psycho-sexual study to peer into those not-so-hidden anxieties that seem to be repressed on the one hand and expressed on the other, but certainly not evenly distributed according to their true source?

As I've stated to friends and family: I don't have a problem supporting and voting for Barack Obama if he wins and it is indeed looking good for him. I also agree that the super delegates should not be used to 'award' the nomination to Clinton if the popular vote has gone for Obama.

However, I do have a big problem with the (mainly white male) broadcast media's disparate treatment and coverage of the campaign as evidenced by the condescending personal attacks and snide, not very disguised remarks about Senator Clinton based on qualities related to her gender, not her record, not her policies, not her skills.

Obama happens to be the beneficiary of unequal treatment which is not in his control. And yeah, of course, that's mainly MSNBC's undisguised favoritism of him and demonization of her, but includes a former Washington Post has-been schlub, Carl Bernstein on CNN.

I have a theory that most of these entitled, privileged, rich, very white guys actually DO have a lot of very deep anxieties about having a Black Male President (even though he's biracial and was raised by his white mom and white grandparents, he identifies himself as African-American, and the world does too, because we're a culture obsessed with racializing and sexualizing and categorizing and labeling 'others' — those who are 'not us').

So Tweety Matthews and Joe 'bully-boy' Scumbag and Smirking Fat-boy Russert and Living on Past Glories Bernstein and Chameleon Shuster and all those guys know vaguely on some level outwardly expressing their fears about Obama's Blackness and about having a Powerful Black Man in charge, installed in the most powerful office in the nation (and world) is obviously bigoted and stupid. (At least they know that it is forbidden to express publicly anyway — except for truly stupid bigots like Bill O'Reilly and Glen Beck who don't have the sense to understand that everyone doesn't think — and I use that word lightly — like they do).

But after the 'Imus affair', those same guys who snickered during all the Imus jokey jokes about people of color and Hillary and women in general, finally found out that: Racism is out. Finally. May it burn in hell never to return. (I can wish and hope, can't I?)

But remember Rutgers: the main public and media outrage (as presented by the media itself) was over the outrageous Imus/McGuirk racism finally going too far, not the sexism.

"

He strides or stumbles about ... bifurcations ... often mapped onto the suspect divides between desire and anxiety ... between the body and perception ... [alternating between being] privileged or repressed ... the other often erupts through regardless of well-placed lines of defense*

"

Sexism is still in — alack and alas — as so many of the constant barrage of movies, songs, videos, games, magazines, tv shows continually prove every minute of every day. Sexism, misogyny, sexual objectification, sexual violence toward all things female/feminine are still acceptable and sanctioned, in fact required by our culture .... including through trite political commentary which is irrelevant and pointless, superficial, cruel, mean, petty, unequal, unjust, but highly effective at demonizing Clinton who represents powerful women, women with ambition, women with plans and determination who don't 'match' the social strictures which require women to be quiet, attractive, young, sexually objectified, non-threatening and not empowered. It's still the whore/madonna syndrome with newer, more sinister twists.

These smug, bloviating, sputtering, spitting, cowardly pundits are so unconscious about their own fears and biases and they have no where else to 'put it' (all that double whammy castration anxiety about powerful women and black men — we really are a repressed, sadistic, puritanical nation) — so they act out other culturally and socially acceptable forms of psychological (and political) violence that mirrors the relationship and stranger violence which occurs every day in the sexual assaults, beatings, sexual enslavement, rapes, murders of women, pregnant women, children and girls every day throughout this nation and the world (just watch the most recent trials and news stories about murdered pregnant women, missing daughters, wives and mothers — most of which are also dismissed as just more media obsession with pretty women, which may be part of the story, but the unconsciousness of what is really happening to women and girls in our culture is what I'm more interested in). Women of color are and have also historically been the targets of all the rage of their own cultures in addition to white culture; white women do not have a great history of supporting their struggles nor the struggles of men of color. Women of privilege and power don't always have a very good history of solidarity with or supporting other women for that matter. Patriarchy is unrelenting. Kind of like the Terminator character in the films and the new, apparently soon-to-be-dead TV series which features a couple of strong, powerful, intellectually and physically superior and determined female characters, coincidentally.).

About that Acting Out, as Robin Morgan has pointed out, if you substitute racist or anti-semitic slurs, terms, attitudes and ridicule, it would easily be identified as such and the outrage would be so loud and vociferous that it would not take 10 minutes for action to be taken amongst the outpouring of righteous indignation and public ire.

Meanwhile, just as also happens everywhere that all these atrocities and indignities occur (large and small), women often willingly participate or act as after-the-fact accomplices (Dowd, Mitchell, O'Donnell — Norah, not Rosie — and to an extent Maddow — what a major disappointment) or are silent (almost everyone else).

Even when you think there are some good guys (Olbermann), they eventually capitulate in order to 'fit in' and put 'good ole boy' loyalty — wanting to be 'one of the guys' above any remaining layer thin integrity and with their jello-filled backbones quickly jump right in to the group activities. I've never seen it fail to occur on some level when in the company of their cohorts. Never.

So when Hillary and others point out that you can't always count on 'the guys' (including Bill himself) to stand up for us, there's a reason and it's called history (or reality, take your pick). We have to hope Obama is different‚ and if he's not — it's up to us to hold him accountable for his promises. The work never ends. Voting is not democracy; it is one expression of a life-long process and responsibility to participatory democracy, and to preserving and extending our constitutional rights to freedom, equality, and civil rights (with rights come responsibilities).

Deep? Yeah, sure. But I'll be interested to read some historical analysis of this extremely 'hysterical' time in our nation's schizophrenic history as we get some distance. It saddens me that we're still such an immature (uncivilized) nation when it comes to women in power (so few) and empowering girls, but encourages me that we may make some major inroads on one of our collective historical sins, racism.

the graduate anne bancroft dustin hoffman Katharine ross 40th edition dvd ebay lowest pricesThe drama of it all also kinda reminds me of The Graduate, especially the final scene when the two star-crossed lovers (Dustin Hoffman and Katharine Ross) end up together on that bus hurtling down the road. It's one thing to see that film in your youth, another to see it after you've grown up and matured for a while.

As I've noted numerous times before, we've never expected any male candidate to be 'perfect' (and they've never let us down in that regard) — including Obama — why do we expect Hillary to be the exception?


..................................

When it's all over, who might be able to provide some honest, clear-headed analysis? Whose book about this history-making time in our democracy's history would you want to read?



dates meet singles online dating personal ads yahoo





*VIRILIO, WAR, CINEMA, BODIES







Technorati Tags:
, , , , , , , ,



Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Why Did Barack Obama Support & Campaign for Joe Lieberman if He Was So Anti-War?

When Obama had a chance to 'speak truth to power', when he had the opportunity to support the anti-war voters of Connecticut, why didn't he? Instead, Barack Obama endorsed and campaigned for Joe Lieberman. Say What?

Obama pro-actively supported Joe Lieberman, the ex-democrat who couldn't win the democratic primary fair and square, so he changed his party affiliation in order to be put back into office by the pro-war republicans. Obama supported Lieberman: the one who has whole-heartedly endorsed and been campaigning for Republican John McCain. Obama supported Lieberman: the one who has continued to side with the Republicans in the Senate in order to prevent the Senate Democrats from bringing about change.

What does that say about Obama's ACTUAL willingness to stand up to the actual status quo when given the clear choice and opportunites? (as opposed to the theoretical one that he has never faced, unlike Hillary.) What does that say about his actual judgment? (as opposed to the theoretical one after the fact where everyone is always a better Monday-morning quarter back) What does it say about how much change he's really willing to advocate for in the face of the pro-war, pro-zionist, pro-right-wing republican, defense department, military industrial complex?

Senator Obama really in actuality abandoned the people he claims to stand with: those who actually voted for anti-war candidate Ned Lamont — who actually won the primary. But Obama chose Lieberman, he stood, acted, campaigned in favor of the war, chose in reality to stand for and with those in power, one of the biggest pro-war hawks in the country, much less the Congress.

Why hasn't the media raised this specific issue? Not to mention so many others such as "what are the specifics" of all these beautiful but vague hopes and dreams?

........................

I don't begrudge Senator Obama his support or his supporters or his willingness to benefit from the sexism and misogyny directed at Hillary Clinton (okay, maybe that last part I think he's been a bit of a coward about. And what was with his wife not being willing to back Hillary if she wins? What the hell is that all about? Not to mention all those homophobic, right-wing supporters who don't seem to bother him -- hey, what does THAT say about his judgment? He's not right on that issue. What others are there that simply haven't been raised, researched, answered?)

He's gotten a free ride from the media. There's just no way to deny that. Studies have already been done. Senator Clinton hasn't. If you watched any of Glenn Beck last night, you'll have begun to hear the underpinnings of the right wing attacks that he has yet to fathom, much less experience. They're not pretty.

Look, I'm for Clinton. It's very clear she's gotten extremely unfair, unequal, grossly sexist and misogynist treatment from mainstream and broadcast media (see MediaMatters.org). If it had all been even-handed, no problem. But it hasn't been. Obama has benefited from the disparate treatment and love-affair support from the media — for now. I don't have a problem with him winning fair and square. But that's not the way it's been. (Not really his fault, not under his control; he could've been more up front about that fact, but he hasn't.) It's the media  — both mainstream and right-wing, and so-called liberal and progressive media — which have treated poured every unnamed anxiety, fear, bias, lie, distortion into their coverage of Clinton.

I'm interested to read the definitive book/analysis about this after it's all over. It kinda reminds me of the hysteria (violence, bigotry, extremism) which emerged toward anyone who seemed  'middle eastern' after September 11th.

If Obama wins, I will vote for him. There's too much to at stake. I think it will take him longer to adjust to the office, to get things done that need to be done, and I think the repugs will pull out all their tricks to block and stymie him if he does win.

It's the unjust, unfair, disgusting treatment of Hillary Clinton that will (and should) haunt this nation's psyche for year — at least those who have any conscience or soul or who long for justice and fairness.

.
..............

There's a Time magazine article about Obama from two years ago, describing his desire to be liked by everyone. Where have we heard THAT before? "The minute you start casting votes, you make some people happy and some people unhappy"

If there's one thing we don't have to worry about with Hillary, it's whether she'd rather be liked or rather accomplish the hard work and actually achieve something!

And you might want to read this news story reprinted by Common Dreams:

Despite Rhetoric, Obama Pushed Lobbyists’ Interests

by Justin Rood

Away from the bright lights and high-minded rhetoric of the campaign trail, Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., has quietly worked with corporate lobbyists to help pass breaks worth $12 million.

In his speeches, Obama has lambasted lobbyists and moneyed interests who “have turned our government into a game only they can afford to play.”

“It’s an entire culture in Washington — some of it legal, some of it not,” the Democratic hopeful told a New York crowd in June, rallying support for his ethics reform agenda.

But last year, at the request of a hired representative for an Australian-owned chemical corporation Nufarm, Obama introduced nine separate bills exempting the company from import fees on a range of chemical ingredients it uses in the manufacture of pesticides and herbicides. Nufarm’s U.S. subsidiary is based in Illinois.

Nufarm wasn’t the only beneficiary of Obama’s efforts to reduce customs fees and duties. In early May of 2006, two Washington lobbyists registered to work on behalf of Astellas Pharma, a Japanese-owned drug company which also has offices in Illinois.

The lobbyists’ task? “Introduce legislation to temporarily suspend customs duties for the importation of a pharmaceutical ingredient,” they wrote on their lobbying forms. Less than three weeks later, the men had earned their $20,000 fee, thanks to Obama. On May 26, he introduced S. 3155, a bill specifically exempting Astellas’ key ingredient from tariff payments. The bill cost the federal government more than $1 million in lost revenue, according to government estimates.

Together, Obama’s obscure measures — known as tariff suspensions — steered more than $12 million away from federal coffers, according to government estimates.

A spokesman for the senator defended Obama’s efforts on behalf of the two firms.

“Sen. Obama helped his constituents obtain foreign products necessary for their business at an affordable rate,” said Ben LaBolt, noting that Obama made sure all the products “met strong environmental standards” before pushing to make it cheaper to import them.

While legal, Obama’s bills on behalf of Nufarm and other companies are part of the special treatment machine Washington rolls out for special interests, say good-government watchdogs.

“If you have a company…there’s a whole factory set up to help you get these suspensions,” said Steve Ellis, president of the Washington, D.C.-based watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. “It’s a pay-to-play system you have to rev up and work.” Hire the right lobbyist, pay the right fee, and you can save millions, he explained.

In Nufarm’s case, Obama’s staff met with a lawyer representing the company, Joel Junker, in person and on the phone several times, Junker told ABC News. Junker says he worked with Obama’s staff to craft the nine bills and keep them moving forward.

“To the extent [the legislation] needs a little shepherding, you work with their staff, to be aware of the status, and work with the committee staff,” he said, and spoke highly of Obama’s staff. “Everything was very professional, very constituent-service oriented.”

Unlike Astella’s representatives, Junker did not register to lobby on behalf of Nufarm and did not disclose his fees. In an interview, Junker declined to say whether he believed his work could be considered “lobbying.”

Obama’s office said its staffers met once with Junker and once with the Astellas lobbyists, but it did not know how often the senator’s staffers spoke with Junker or the Astellas lobbyists by phone. Astellas did not respond to a request for comment on this story. Nufarm Americas’ marketing director, Tim Stoehr, confirmed his company had requested several tariff suspensions, including on products it “bought” from other Nufarm subsidiaries overseas.

A review of campaign finance records turned up no record of contributions from Nufarm to Obama. Astellas Pharma employees gave $1,100 to Obama’s campaign in recent months, the documents show.

Junker defended tariff suspensions as good for American businesses. The high fees are charged to protect American manufacturers from being undercut by cheap imports, argued the former U.S. trade official. If no U.S. firm makes a particular item, the cost only hurts a company which needs to buy it overseas.

“It’s nothing to be embarrassed, ashamed or suspicious of,” he said.

In letters to Congress supporting Obama’s measures, Junker justified the breaks for Nufarm to import a chemical known as 2,4 D and other ingredients by claiming they would “eliminate these unnecessary and avoidable…costs to [Nufarm’s] consumers.”

In a statement to ABC News defending the measures, Obama’s spokesman echoed Junker’s argument.
“Just like he fought for funding to ensure Chicago’s transit system remains affordable and to invest in ethanol research, Senator Obama helped keep costs low for Illinois residents by helping them get the goods they need to do their jobs,” Ben LaBolt wrote.

But the company’s financial reports indicate that may not be the case. In a glowing financial report issued just two months after Obama introduced Nufarm’s numerous tariff-lifting bills, Nufarm told its shareholders it was making more money than ever before in North America because it had increased its prices on its U.S. and Canadian customers, predominantly farmers.

Nufarm saw “strong revenue growth” in North America, it said in a July 31, 2006, company report. “Net profit was also up strongly,” driven in part by “price rises on key products,” it said. Nufarm trades on the Australian Stock Exchange.

When asked about the company’s contrasting statements, Nufarm America’s Stoehr told ABC News the financial report wasn’t accurate.

“I don’t know if I believe that,” he said. “A lot of that is a little more hype.” If the company had increased its prices, said Stoehr, it was only because its costs had “skyrocketed.” “Our profit remained steady,” said the executive.

In particular, “price rises on phenoxy herbicides,” a family which includes 2,4 D, “improved the profitability of those products, despite no significant increase in sales volumes.”

Economics aside, some medical researchers also harbor concerns over 2,4 D. Studies have purported to find a link between high exposure to the chemical and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a type of cancer. Defenders of the chemical say it is safe, and note that even scientists who believe a link exists cannot explain how the chemical may cause the cancer.

With a dozen tariff suspension bills to his name, Obama stands out as the most prolific of any Democratic presidential hopeful on the topic. Sen. Hillary Clinton, N.Y., has introduced none, although she has co-sponsored 19 that were introduced by Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. Seven were to benefit the Honeywell Corporation, whose lobbyist has contributed $6,500 to Clinton since 2005. Sen. Joseph Biden, Del., has introduced none.

Only one other 2008 presidential hopeful has introduced more tariff suspension bills than Obama. Longshot GOP candidate Sen. Sam Brownback, Kan., introduced 30 such measures in the 109th Congress. Fellow dark horse candidate Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., introduced one in 2001; Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif. have introduced none.

Some say the tariff suspension process isn’t how Washington should operate.

“We all saw ‘Schoolhouse Rock’ and learned how Washington is supposed to work,” Taxpayers for Common Sense president Steve Ellis told the Blotter on ABCNews.com. “There’s no ‘Schoolhouse Rock’ episode on tariff suspensions.”

In his speeches, Sen. Obama seems to agree.

“We need a president who sees government not as a tool to enrich well-connected friends and high-priced lobbyists, but as the defender of fairness and opportunity for every American,” the candidate said in his June speech. “That’s the kind of president I intend to be.”

Mansi Mehan contributed to this report.

>>
............................................................

Donate to Hillary Clinton Online

(and any way you can). Fast. Easy. Secure. ............................................................

Technorati Tags: ,, ,

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Why Many Californians & Latinos Support Hillary Clinton

From Steve Lopez at the L.A. Times

In Latino neighborhood, Clinton's experience counts

......................................

But first, from a previous Lopez column:

Hillary Clinton gets the vote of a woman who had Barack Obama in her backyard.

Yes, Vitello says, it helped that Clinton is female. But it was about more than either gender or race.

Obama's inspirational call for change was no match for the trench work Clinton is capable of. As a nurse, Vitello has studied with interest the national healthcare reform proposals by the two candidates, and she's found Clinton's a bit more to her liking and more realistic.

"I felt Obama was all surface, with no center," says Vitello, who also confesses that in her backyard, she found him a little too much of a lefty, leaning too heavily on government solutions to problems people should work out on their own.

One woman at that gathering complained that she had run up huge credit card debt trying to put her child through college. Vitello doesn't remember all of Obama's response, but she recalls her own thoughts:

Maybe the student needs to get a job first and consider starting at a less expensive college, and maybe the parent needs to know better than to put college on a credit card.

When I point out that Vitello switched parties because of a war that Clinton supported, she says:

"But Clinton made her decision based on what everyone else was saying at the time, and I can't blame her for her choice when I voted for George Bush."


......................................
Back to the column on the Latino vote:

"It's not black or white, male or female, it's experience"


Nick Frousakis went to his grave in December, and one of his most loyal customers, Raul Sousa, followed him into the ground the very next day, old age doing both of them in.

"Nobody wants to sit there now," said Diego Romero, pointing to where Sousa used to hold forth at Jim's Burgers, State and 1st in Boyle Heights.

But the gang still shows up most weekdays to carry on the tradition despite the absence of Frousakis, a Greek-born businessman who had the good sense to put tacos up on the board next to hamburgers.

They drink coffee from Styrofoam cups. They soak up the sun. And they talk.

Life, death, sports, women, politics.

It was the last of those subjects I wanted to hear about last week. Latinos turned out as never before in the California presidential primary, accounting for 30% of the Democratic vote. As a group, Latinos sent an early valentine to Hillary Clinton, voting for her by a 2-1 ratio.

I wanted to know why, but first I had to find some Clinton voters. So which candidate did these guys like?

"Clinton," three men said in unison when I sat down Thursday.

"Clinton," said three different men when I took a seat at the same table Friday.

Altogether, four of the six said they had actually voted. One is a legal resident but not a citizen, and the other just didn't make it to the polls.

She should be held responsible, but that doesn't mean she's not the best candidate


The state's Latinos are overwhelmingly Democratic, and none of the Jim's crowd even considered voting for a Republican, even though Sen. John McCain supported a path to legal status for many illegal immigrants.

"They're for the greedy corporations," said retired landscaper Feliz Botello. "They don't care about us and our people."

He might get some disagreement from the estimated 10% of the state's Republican voters who happen to be Latino.

So why Clinton instead of Obama?

"El sabe menos [He knows less]," Roberto Luz, a mariachi, said in Spanish of Barack Obama.

"¿Que ha hecho, él? [What has he done?]," echoed Joaquin Vega, who used to run the auto repair shop across the street.

Most of the comments were similarly straightforward. It didn't hurt that L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa supported Clinton, said the men.

But if I had to list the top reasons the men liked Clinton over Obama or a Republican candidate, the order would go something like this:

She has more experience than Obama. The Clinton name is trusted. Times were good under Bill Clinton, and Hillary is cut from the same cloth. Too much money and too many lives are being wasted in Iraq while things fall apart at home.

Jaime Regalado of Cal State L.A.'s Pat Brown Institute told me by phone that some of Clinton's enemies on the right are seen as enemies of the Latino community, particularly on the subject of immigration. She was smart, Regalado said, to use Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in TV ads and link herself to the slain Kennedy's support for Cesar Chavez and farmworkers.

Regalado was surprised by just how strong the Latino turnout was. But in retrospect, he said, the gloomy economic news, the war and the possibility of ending Republican rule were something of a perfect storm, and Latinos were eager to make their voices heard.

"The last factor is that in the Latino community, as in all communities, there is a certain amount of prejudice," Regalado said, and some Latinos were probably more comfortable with a white woman than a black man.

Even a black man who said illegal immigrants should have driver's licenses and that immigrants can't be blamed for problems in some black communities?

Yes, and yes again.

"He's a very good speaker, and maybe he would be better than Clinton," said Vega, who agreed that younger Latinos seemed a little more inclined to connect with Obama. "But I like Clinton."

I pointed out to Vega, Bill Escarsega and Botello that they don't exactly come from a matriarchal culture. So how did these old-school caballeros suddenly get so comfortable with the idea of a woman in the White House?

"It's not black or white, male or female, it's experience," said Vega.

"My grandfather? Macho, macho, macho," said Botello. "My father? Macho, macho, macho.

"I don't believe in that B.S. anymore. You know why? I'm civilized. I went to school."

When the men talked about all the lives lost in Iraq, and Botello said his cousin was killed in combat, I reminded the kaffeeklatschers that Clinton had voted to support the war.

"And she should be held responsible," said Vega, but that doesn't mean she's not the best candidate.

"Bush lied," Botello charged. "Bush and Cheney lied to everybody, including Congress."

As we spoke, a Latin beat warped and wobbled out of a music shop across 1st Street, and a man came along pushing a battered old bicycle someone had just given him. It needed some love, he said, but it would be fine.

So who did he vote for?

"Clinton," he said immediately, and with that, the former first lady had swept the corner of 1st and State streets in Boyle Heights.



From the L.A. Times








Technorati Tags:
, , , ,

Labels: , , ,

Because It Must Be Said...Written...Read...Considered...Acted Upon

For too long, the history of women has been a history of silence



Goodbye To All That (#2)

by Robin Morgan

February 2, 2008

Goodbye To All That” was my (in)famous 1970 essay breaking free from a politics of accommodation especially affecting women (for an online version, see http://blog.fair-use.org/category/chicago/).

During my decades in civil-rights, anti-war, and contemporary women’s movements, I’ve avoided writing another specific “Goodbye . . .” But not since the suffrage struggle have two communities—joint conscience-keepers of this country—been so set in competition, as the contest between Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC) and Barack Obama (BO) unfurls. So.

Goodbye to the double standard . . .

—Hillary is too ballsy but too womanly, a Snow Maiden who’s emotional, and so much a politician as to be unfit for politics.

—She’s “ambitious” but he shows “fire in the belly.” (Ever had labor pains?)—When a sexist idiot screamed “Iron my shirt!” at HRC, it was considered amusing; if a racist idiot shouted “Shine my shoes!” at BO, it would’ve inspired hours of airtime and pages of newsprint analyzing our national dishonor.

—Young political Kennedys—Kathleen, Kerry, and Bobby Jr.—all endorsed Hillary. Senator Ted, age 76, endorsed Obama. If the situation were reversed, pundits would snort “See? Ted and establishment types back her, but the forward-looking generation backs him.” (Personally, I’m unimpressed with Caroline’s longing for the Return of the Fathers. Unlike the rest of the world, Americans have short memories. Me, I still recall Marilyn Monroe’s suicide, and a dead girl named Mary Jo Kopechne in Chappaquiddick.)

Goodbye to the toxic viciousness . . .

Carl Bernstein's disgust at Hillary’s “thick ankles.” Nixon-trickster Roger Stone’s new Hillary-hating 527 group, “Citizens United Not Timid” (check the capital letters). John McCain answering “How do we beat the bitch?" with “Excellent question!” Would he have dared reply similarly to “How do we beat the black bastard?” For shame.

Goodbye to the HRC nutcracker with metal spikes between splayed thighs. If it was a tap-dancing blackface doll, we would be righteously outraged—and they would not be selling it in airports. Shame.

Goodbye to the most intimately violent T-shirts in election history, including one with the murderous slogan “If Only Hillary had married O.J. Instead!” Shame.

Goodbye to Comedy Central’s “Southpark” featuring a storyline in which terrorists secrete a bomb in HRC’s vagina. I refuse to wrench my brain down into the gutter far enough to find a race-based comparison. For shame.



“Well-behaved women seldom make history.”



Goodbye to the sick, malicious idea that this is funny. This is not “Clinton hating,” not “Hillary hating.” This is sociopathic woman-hating. If it were about Jews, we would recognize it instantly as anti-Semitic propaganda; if about race, as KKK poison. Hell, PETA would go ballistic if such vomitous spew were directed at animals. Where is our sense of outrage—as citizens, voters, Americans?

Goodbye to the news-coverage target-practice . . .

The women’s movement and Media Matters wrung an apology from MSNBC’s Chris Matthews for relentless misogynistic comments (www.womensmediacenter.com). But what about NBC’s Tim Russert’s continual sexist asides and his all-white-male panels pontificating on race and gender? Or CNN’s Tony Harris chuckling at “the chromosome thing” while interviewing a woman from The White House Project? And that’s not even mentioning Fox News.

Goodbye to pretending the black community is entirely male and all women are white . . .

Surprise! Women exist in all opinions, pigmentations, ethnicities, abilities, sexual preferences, and ages—not only African American and European American but Latina and Native American, Asian American and Pacific Islanders, Arab American and—hey, every group, because a group wouldn’t exist if we hadn’t given birth to it. A few non-racist countries may exist—but sexism is everywhere. No matter how many ways a woman breaks free from other discriminations, she remains a female human being in a world still so patriarchal that it’s the “norm.”

So why should all women not be as justly proud of our womanhood and the centuries, even millennia, of struggle that got us this far, as black Americans, women and men, are justly proud of their struggles?

Goodbye to a campaign where he has to pass as white (which whites—especially wealthy ones—adore), while she has to pass as male (which both men and women demanded of her, and then found unforgivable). If she were blackor he were female we wouldn’t be having such problems, and I for one would be in heaven. But at present such a candidate wouldn’t stand a chance—even if she shared Condi Rice’s Bush-defending politics.

I was celebrating the pivotal power at last focused on African American women deciding on which of two candidates to bestow their vote—until a number of Hillary-supporting black feminists told me they’re being called “race traitors.”


Why should all women not be as justly proud of our womanhood and the centuries, even millennia, of struggle that got us this far, as black Americans, women and men, are justly proud of their struggles?



So goodbye to conversations about this nation’s deepest scar—slavery—which fail to acknowledge that labor- and sexual-slavery exist today in the U.S. and elsewhere on this planet, and the majority of those enslaved are women.

Women have endured sex/race/ethnic/religious hatred, rape and battery, invasion of spirit and flesh, forced pregnancy; being the majority of the poor, the illiterate, the disabled, of refugees, caregivers, the HIV/AIDS afflicted, the powerless. We have survived invisibility, ridicule, religious fundamentalisms, polygamy, teargas, forced feedings, jails, asylums, sati, purdah, female genital mutilation, witch burnings, stonings, and attempted gynocides. We have tried reason, persuasion, reassurances, and being extra-qualified, only to learn it never was about qualifications after all. We know that at this historical moment women experience the world differently from men—though not all the same as one another—and can govern differently, from Elizabeth Tudor to Michele Bachelet and Ellen Johnson Sirleaf.



We remember when Shirley Chisholm and Patricia Schroeder ran for this high office and barely got past the gate—they showed too much passion, raised too little cash, were joke fodder. Goodbye to all that. (And goodbye to some feminists so famished for a female president they were even willing to abandon women’s rights in backing Elizabeth Dole.)

Goodbye, goodbye to . . .

—blaming anything Bill Clinton does on Hillary (even including his womanizing like the Kennedy guys—though unlike them, he got reported on). Let’s get real. If he hadn’t campaigned strongly for her everyone would cluck over what that meant. Enough of Bill and Teddy Kennedy locking their alpha male horns while Hillary pays for it.

—an era when parts of the populace feel so disaffected by politics that a comparative lack of knowledge, experience, and skill is actually seen as attractive, when celebrity-culture mania now infects our elections so that it’s “cooler” to glow with marquee charisma than to understand the vast global complexities of power on a nuclear, wounded planet.

—the notion that it’s fun to elect a handsome, cocky president who feels he can learn on the job, goodbye to George W. Bush and the destruction brought by his inexperience, ignorance, and arrogance. Goodbye to the accusation that HRC acts “entitled” when she’s worked intensely at everything she’s done—including being a nose-to-the-grindstone, first-rate senator from my state.


Goodbye to conversations about this nation’s deepest scar—slavery—which fail to acknowledge that labor- and sexual-slavery exist today in the U.S. and elsewhere on this planet, and the majority of those enslaved are women.


Goodbye to her being exploited as a Rorschach test by women who reduce her to a blank screen on which they project their own fears, failures, fantasies.

Goodbye to the phrase “polarizing figure” to describe someone who embodies the transitions women have made in the last century and are poised to make in this one. It was the women’s movement that quipped, “We are becoming the men we wanted to marry.” She heard us, and she has.

Goodbye to some women letting history pass by while wringing their hands, because Hillary isn’t as “likeable” as they’ve been warned they must be, or because she didn’t leave him, couldn’t “control” him, kept her family together and raised a smart, sane daughter. (Think of the blame if Chelsea had ever acted in the alcoholic, neurotic manner of the Bush twins!) Goodbye to some women pouting because she didn’t bake cookies or she did, sniping because she learned the rules and then bent or broke them. Grow the hell up. She is not running for Ms.-perfect-pure-queen-icon of the feminist movement. She’s running to be president of the United States.

Goodbye to the shocking American ignorance of our own and other countries’ history. Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir rose through party ranks and war, positioning themselves as proto-male leaders. Almost all other female heads of government so far have been related to men of power—granddaughters, daughters, sisters, wives, widows: Gandhi, Bandaranike, Bhutto, Aquino, Chamorro, Wazed, Macapagal-Arroyo, Johnson Sirleaf, Bachelet, Kirchner, and more. Even in our “land of opportunity,” it’s mostly the first pathway “in” permitted to women: Representatives Doris Matsui and Mary Bono and Sala Burton; Senator Jean Carnahan . . . far too many to list here.

Goodbye to a misrepresented generational divide . . .

Goodbye to the so-called spontaneous “Obama Girl” flaunting her bikini-clad ass online—then confessing Oh yeah it wasn’t her idea after all, some guys got her to do it and dictated the clothes, which she said “made me feel like a dork.”

Goodbye to some young women eager to win male approval by showing they’re not feminists (at least not the kind who actually threaten thestatus quo), who can’t identify with a woman candidate because she is unafraid of eeueweeeu yucky power, who fear their boyfriends might look at them funny if they say something good about her. Goodbye to women of any age again feeling unworthy, sulking “what if she’s not electable?” or “maybe it’s post-feminism and whoooosh we’re already free.” Let a statement by the magnificent Harriet Tubman stand as reply. When asked how she managed to save hundreds of enslaved African Americans via the Underground Railroad during the Civil War, she replied bitterly, “I could have saved thousands—if only I’d been able to convince them they were slaves.”

I’d rather say a joyful Hello to all the glorious young women who do identifywith Hillary, and all the brave, smart men—of all ethnicities and any age—who get that it’s in their self-interest, too. She’s better qualified. (D’uh.) She’s a high-profile candidate with an enormous grasp of foreign- and domestic-policy nuance, dedication to detail, ability to absorb staggering insult and personal pain while retaining dignity, resolve, even humor, and keep on keeping on. (Also, yes, dammit, let’s hear it for her connections and funding and party-building background, too. Obama was awfully glad about those when she raised dough and campaigned for him to get to the Senate in the first place.)

I’d rather look forward to what a good president he might make in eight years, when his vision and spirit are seasoned by practical know-how—and he’ll be all of 54. Meanwhile, goodbye to turning him into a shining knight when actually he’s an astute, smooth pol with speechwriters who’ve worked with the Kennedys’ own speechwriter-courtier Ted Sorenson. If it’s only about ringing rhetoric, let speechwriters run. But isn’t it about getting the policies we want enacted?

And goodbye to the ageism . . .

How dare anyone unilaterally decide when to turn the page on history, papering over real inequities and suffering constituencies in the promise of a feel-good campaign? How dare anyone claim to unify while dividing, or think that to rouse U.S. youth from torpor it’s useful to triage the single largest demographic in this country’s history: the boomer generation—the majority of which is female?

Old woman are the one group that doesn’t grow more conservative with age—and we are the generation of radicals who said “Well-behaved women seldom make history.” Goodbye to going gently into any goodnight any man prescribes for us. We are the women who changed the reality of the United States. And though we never went away, brace yourselves: we’re back!

We are the women who brought this country equal credit, better pay, affirmative action, the concept of a family-focused workplace; the women who established rape-crisis centers and battery shelters, marital-rape and date-rape laws; the women who defended lesbian custody rights, who fought for prison reform, founded the peace and environmental movements; who insisted that medical research include female anatomy; who inspired men to become more nurturing parents; who created women’s studies and Title IX so we all could cheer the WNBA stars and Mia Hamm. We are the women who reclaimed sexuality from violent pornography, who put childcare on the national agenda, who transformed demographics, artistic expression, language itself. We are the women who forged a worldwide movement. We are the proud successors of women who, though it took more than 50 years, won us the vote.

We are the women who now comprise the majority of U.S. voters.

Hillary said she found her own voice in New Hampshire. There’s not a woman alive who, if she’s honest, doesn’t recognize what she means. Then HRC got drowned out by campaign experts, Bill, and media’s obsession with everything Bill.

So listen to her voice:

For too long, the history of women has been a history of silence. Even today, there are those who are trying to silence our words.

“It is a violation of human rights when babies are denied food, or drowned, or suffocated, or their spines broken, simply because they are born girls. It is a violation of human rights when woman and girls are sold into the slavery of prostitution. It is a violation of human rights when women are doused with gasoline, set on fire and burned to death because their marriage dowries are deemed too small. It is a violation of human rights when individual women are raped in their own communities and when thousands of women are subjected to rape as a tactic or prize of war. It is a violation of human rights when a leading cause of death worldwide along women ages 14 to 44 is the violence they are subjected to in their own homes. It is a violation of human rights when women are denied the right to plan their own families, and that includes being forced to have abortions or being sterilized against their will.

“Women’s rights are human rights. Among those rights are the right to speak freely—and the right to be heard.”

That was Hillary Rodham Clinton defying the U.S. State Department and the Chinese Government at the 1995 UN World Conference on Women in Beijing (look here for the full, stunning speech).

And this voice, age 21, in “Commencement Remarks of Hillary D. Rodham, President of Wellesley College Government Association, Class of 1969.”

“We are, all of us, exploring a world none of us understands. . . . searching for a more immediate, ecstatic, and penetrating mode of living. . . . [for the] integrity, the courage to be whole, living in relation to one another in the full poetry of existence. The struggle for an integrated life existing in an atmosphere of communal trust and respect is one with desperately important political and social consequences. . . . Fear is always with us, but we just don't have time for it.”

She ended with the commitment “to practice, with all the skill of our being: the art of making possible.”

And for decades, she’s been learning how.

So goodbye to Hillary’s second-guessing herself. The real question is deeper than her re-finding her voice. Can we women find ours? Can we do this for ourselves?

“Our President, Ourselves!”

Time is short and the contest tightening. We need to rise in furious energy—as we did when Anita Hill was so vilely treated in the U.S. Senate, as we did when Rosie Jiminez was butchered by an illegal abortion, as we did and do for women globally who are condemned for trying to break through. We need to win, this time. Goodbye to supporting HRC tepidly, with ambivalent caveats and apologetic smiles. Time to volunteer, make phone calls, send emails, donate money, argue, rally, march, shout, vote.

Me? I support Hillary Rodham because she’s the best qualified of all candidates running in both parties. I support her because her progressive politics are as strong as her proven ability to withstand what will be a massive right-wing assault in the general election. I support her because she knows how to get us out of Iraq. I support her because she’s refreshingly thoughtful, and I’m bloodied from eight years of a jolly “uniter” with ejaculatory politics. I needn’t agree with her on every point. I agree with the 97 percent of her positions that are identical with Obama’s—and the few where hers are both more practical and to the left of his (like health care). I support her because she’s already smashed the first-lady stereotype and made history as a fine senator, because I believe she will continue to make history not only as the first US woman president, but as a great US president.

As for the “woman thing”?

Me, I’m voting for Hillary not because she’s a woman—but because I am.



From the Womens Media Center

Robin Morgan has published 21 books, including six of poetry, four of fiction, and the now-classic anthologies Sisterhood Is Powerful, Sisterhood Is Global, and Sisterhood Is Forever. Her work has been translated into 13 languages. A founder of contemporary U.S. feminism, she has also been a leader in the international women's movement for 25 years. Recent books include A Hot January: Poems 1996-1999; Saturday's Child: A Memoir; her best-selling The Demon Lover: The Roots of Terrorism, updated and reissued in 2001; and her novel, The Burning Time. Her nonfiction work, Fighting Words: A Took Kit for Combating the Religious Right, came out in September 2006.






............................................................

Donate to Hillary Clinton Online

(and any way you can). Fast. Easy. Secure.
............................................................



Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Cult of Personality + American Sexism + Media Bias + Groupthink = ???

Racism, misogyny and character assassination are all ways of distracting voters from the issues.

Hate Springs Eternal

By PAUL KRUGMAN
OP-ED COLUMNIST
February 11, 2008

In 1956 Adlai Stevenson, running against Dwight Eisenhower, tried to make the political style of his opponent’s vice president, a man by the name of Richard Nixon, an issue. The nation, he warned, was in danger of becoming “a land of slander and scare; the land of sly innuendo, the poison pen, the anonymous phone call and hustling, pushing, shoving; the land of smash and grab and anything to win. This is Nixonland.”

Krugman: Even the Democratic Party seems to be turning into Nixonland: the land of slander and scare, the politics of hatred.

Most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We’ve already had that from the Bush administration.

The quote comes from “Nixonland,” a soon-to-be-published political history of the years from 1964 to 1972 written by Rick Perlstein, the author of “Before the Storm.” As Mr. Perlstein shows, Stevenson warned in vain: during those years America did indeed become the land of slander and scare, of the politics of hatred.

And it still is. In fact, these days even the Democratic Party seems to be turning into Nixonland.

The bitterness of the fight for the Democratic nomination is, on the face of it, bizarre. Both candidates still standing are smart and appealing. Both have progressive agendas (although I believe that Hillary Clinton is more serious about achieving universal health care, and that Barack Obama has staked out positions that will undermine his own efforts). Both have broad support among the party’s grass roots and are favorably viewed by Democratic voters.

Supporters of each candidate should have no trouble rallying behind the other if he or she gets the nod.

Why, then, is there so much venom out there?

I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We’ve already had that from the Bush administration — remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don’t want to go there again.

What’s particularly saddening is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of “Clinton rules” — the term a number of observers use for the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent.

The prime example of Clinton rules in the 1990s was the way the press covered Whitewater. A small, failed land deal became the basis of a multiyear, multimillion-dollar investigation, which never found any evidence of wrongdoing on the Clintons’ part, yet the “scandal” became a symbol of the Clinton administration’s alleged corruption.

During the current campaign, Mrs. Clinton’s entirely reasonable remark that it took L.B.J.’s political courage and skills to bring Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to fruition was cast as some kind of outrageous denigration of Dr. King.

And the latest prominent example came when David Shuster of MSNBC, after pointing out that Chelsea Clinton was working for her mother’s campaign — as adult children of presidential aspirants often do — asked, “doesn’t it seem like Chelsea’s sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?” Mr. Shuster has been suspended, but as the Clinton campaign rightly points out, his remark was part of a broader pattern at the network.

I call it Clinton rules, but it’s a pattern that goes well beyond the Clintons. For example, Al Gore was subjected to Clinton rules during the 2000 campaign: anything he said, and some things he didn’t say (no, he never claimed to have invented the Internet), was held up as proof of his alleged character flaws.

For now, Clinton rules are working in Mr. Obama’s favor. But his supporters should not take comfort in that fact.

For one thing, Mrs. Clinton may yet be the nominee — and if Obama supporters care about anything beyond hero worship, they should want to see her win in November.

For another, if history is any guide, if Mr. Obama wins the nomination, he will quickly find himself being subjected to Clinton rules. Democrats always do.

But most of all, progressives should realize that Nixonland is not the country we want to be. Racism, misogyny and character assassination are all ways of distracting voters from the issues, and people who care about the issues have a shared interest in making the politics of hatred unacceptable.

One of the most hopeful moments of this presidential campaign came last month, when a number of Jewish leaders signed a letter condemning the smear campaign claiming that Mr. Obama was a secret Muslim. It’s a good guess that some of those leaders would prefer that Mr. Obama not become president; nonetheless, they understood that there are principles that matter more than short-term political advantage.

I’d like to see more moments like that, perhaps starting with strong assurances from both Democratic candidates that they respect their opponents and would support them in the general election.

Krugman could've also mentioned the phenomenon of GroupThink (Irving Janis), which also infected the Kennedy administration, and certainly every republican one since then. And don't forget the Republicans are still pining for the Cult of Personality and pure fantasy surrounding Ronald Reagan.

Krugman's online column here.




............................................................

Donate to Hillary Clinton Online

(and any way you can). Fast. Easy. Secure.
............................................................





Technorati Tags:
, , , , , , ,



Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, February 11, 2008

Hillary is surprisingly really, really good and compelling..

Obama is a huge show with pyrotechnics, laser lights and all the rock star accoutrements (including being more than an hour late!).
Hillary is surprisingly really, really good and compelling.

--a multiple campaign attendee



............................................................

Donate to Hillary Clinton Online

(and any way you can). Fast. Easy. Secure.
............................................................

Sense & Sensibilities

Hope for What? Change to do What?
“Talk Is Cheap. Mistakes Are Expensive”


People who are being “swept along by the eloquence of Barack Obama's speeches“ forget that at one time, George W. Bush was seen as “charming“ and “inspirational“ ...


The beneficiary of this she’s-a-victim-so-we-must-expel-her logic is Barack Obama who doesn’t have to work hard at all. The media are doing it for him


E.J. Dionne asks: Who can beat John McCain? Polls today are a snapshot. Polls change, people change their minds. What the polls say today cannot be counted on tomorrow, or next month, or next fall. The polls had written off John McCain just a few weeks ago.


A Party Divided by Sensibility

By E. J. Dionne Jr.

Tuesday, February 12, 2008; Page A19

It's come down to this: Who can beat John McCain?


Winning that argument could allow Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton to reach beyond their respective demographic comfort zones. Only if one of them can build a clear majority will the party be saved from a descent into the mire of rules fights and backroom dealing. It will also take leadership to protect the Democratic village from chaos and recriminations.

For the moment, the world is moving Obama's way: He swept four states last weekend and is favored in today's primaries in the District of Columbia, Maryland and Virginia. Polling suggests that Obama can draw independents whom Clinton can't reach and can mobilize new and younger voters in a way Clinton never will.

Obama drove that perception by offering a brief against the politics of Clintonism: She “starts off with 47 percent of the country against her,“ he said in Alexandria on Sunday.


Meanwhile, as Professor Stanley Fish points out in his NYTimes column entitled "A Calumny* a Day To Keep Hillary Away", “Electability (a concept invoked often) is a code word that masks the fact that the result of such reasoning is to cede the political power to the ranters.“ One respondent to his earlier column on Hillary Hate wrote: “When Obama calls Hillary divisive he, of course, is pandering to these crazies...” Fish writes that “The beneficiary of this she’s-a-victim-so-we-must-expel-her logic is Barack Obama, and some respondents suspected him of fostering the divisiveness he rails against. Actually, Obama doesn’t have to work hard at all. The media ... are doing it for him. ... With unpaid employees on both sides of the media aisle, Obama doesn’t have to do anything but be his usual inspirational self. Unencumbered by the record of achievements and missteps that comes along with political longevity, he can present a clean slate to the electorate. Nothing hazarded equals nothing to be criticized for.”


“...There is another world in Democratic politics, a practical, mostly middle-aged and middle-class world that is immune to fervor and electricity. It is made up of people with long memories who are skeptical of fads and like their candidates tough, detail-oriented and -- to use a word Obama regularly mocks -- seasoned.”


...It's hard to imagine that she can “break out of the politics of the past 15 years.” The alternative: the antidepressant right there on the shelf in front of them. Its brand is Obama.

Yet there is another world in Democratic politics, a practical, mostly middle-aged and middle-class world that is immune to fervor and electricity. It is made up of people with long memories who are skeptical of fads and like their candidates tough, detail-oriented and -- to use a word Obama regularly mocks -- seasoned.


If Obama is passion, Clinton is bread and butter. If she needs more flourishes, he could afford to traffic a bit more in the staples.


These are the Hillary people, and they gathered in Manassas last weekend in significant numbers at the Grace E. Metz Middle School, cozy schools being a preferred venue for a Clinton campaign aware that mammoth rallies are normally beyond its reach.

She does not lack for loyalists. Paulie Abeles of Derwood, Md., held aloft a hand-printed sign that did not mince words: “Talk Is Cheap. Mistakes Are Expensive.”


Abeles explained that people who are being “swept along by the eloquence of Barack Obama's speeches” forget that at one time, George W. Bush was seen as “charming” and “inspirational.” And electability was on her mind. If President Bush raised the terror alert level four days before the election (“I happen to be very cynical,” she averred), the Democrats would want their most experienced candidate confronting McCain.


Clinton spoke directly to her audience's skepticism of good talkers -- ironic in light of her husband's oratorical gifts. “You're so specific,” she quoted people as telling her. “Why don't you just come and . . . give us one of those great rhetorical flourishes and get everybody all whooped up?” The crowd actually whooped at that. But eloquence, she said, is not the point, since the election “is not about me, it's about us.”

If Obama is passion, Clinton is bread and butter. If she needs more flourishes, he could afford to traffic a bit more in the staples.


Her speech is a well-crafted recitation of how government could ease the lives of those without health insurance, students burdened by college loans, homeowners facing foreclosure, veterans who have been abandoned, the working poor who deserve a hand up.

As she speaks, Doug Hattaway, one of her aides, notes that her practical litany is precisely what appeals to working-class and middle-class voters who respond to “tangible issues.” They also rebel against the idea that they are not part of the cool, privileged masses for Obama. One of the signs at the Manassas rally defiantly touted “Well Educated High Earners for Hillary.” This is a party divided not by ideology but by sensibility.



Meanwhile that old CIA-Agent-outing traitor, Bob Novak worries for the dems about racism and "The Bradley Effect" when he's never shown that concern regarding his own Greedy Old Party of Rich Racist White Men. He also conveniently fails to mention the overwhelming numbers and percentages of white voters Obama has decisively won in those (mostly white) states in which he was the primary or caucus winner. As Dionne gets right, it's much more about sensibility, history, and the life experiences of voters, not racism. If anything is hard at work overtly and covertly, it's sexism and misogyny**.



* calumny | cal•um•ny |ˈkaləmnē

noun ( pl. -nies)

the making of false and defamatory statements in order to damage someone's reputation; slander.

• a false and slanderous statement.


**misogyny | mi•sog•y•ny | məˈsäjənē|

noun

the hatred of women


Dionne's complete column here; Fish's is here.


............................................................

Donate to Hillary Clinton Online

(and any way you can). Fast. Easy. Secure.
............................................................



Technorati Tags:
, , ,


Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Saturday, February 09, 2008

Bob Herbert Agrees With Me!

It's Definitely (mostly, mainly, primarily) the Economy, Again, Dumkoffs!

Recently I wrote:

We need a new 'put america back to work' public-private initiative


Here's what I think we need with a new president starting on day one:


a new 'put america back to work' WPA type public-private initiative with a focus on including:


• repairing/updating/improving all aspects of the infrastructure; include job training and career-shift education which puts americans to work in good paying jobs (with benefits) created from public-private partnerships;


• a commitment to oil/gas-free energy independence/green technology/energy innovations (mostly avoid biofuels because it does more harm than good in the long run; see recent research/reports);


• a focus on fast-tracking science and technology education for public schools, community colleges, universities (includes job-training/ed for adults); create public private partnerships and feeder schools in urban, suburban, rural hubs -- those things focus on both items above.


Today Mr. Herbert wrote:

The essential question the candidates should be trying to answer — but that is not even being asked very often — is how to create good jobs in the 21st century. Thirty-seven million Americans are poor, and roughly 60 million others are near-poor. (These are people struggling to make it on incomes of $20,000 to $40,000 a year for a family of four.)

The middle class is hardly flourishing. In testimony before a House subcommittee last year, Harley Shaiken, a Berkeley professor who is an expert on labor and employment, remarked: “During a period of robust economic growth, record profits and the fastest sustained productivity increases since the 1950s, only a thin slice at the top of the economic heap is enjoying higher living standards.”

Now the country is faced with a possible recession and the likelihood of moving further backward rather than forward on employment.

“We’re building exit ramps from the middle class,” said Mr. Shaiken during an interview. “But what is the path to the middle class for most Americans now? We need to figure out how to resume building entrance ramps.”

The most direct route to the middle class has always been a good job. An obvious potential source of new jobs would be a broad campaign to rebuild the nation’s infrastructure — its roads, bridges, schools, levees, water treatment facilities and so forth.

Another area with big job creation potential is the absolutely vital quest to develop alternative sources of energy. That effort should carry the same high national priority that was accorded the Manhattan Project during World War II. I’d even call it Manhattan II.

There are moments in history that demand not just talent in a nation’s leadership, but greatness — men or women with the courage to dream bigger and the ability to convince others that those dreams can be realized.

He goes on to claim no presidential candidate has shown the required bold vision and leadership, but I have to disagree. Obama shows leadership qualities and Senator Clinton has shown a keen grasp of the dilemmas of the middle and working class and has consistently promoted her policies to rebuild the economy, stimulate green collar investments and jobs, and rebuild the infrastructure. She's not the beneficiary of the broadcast or print media lovefest. Shame on his colleagues (you know who you are). Shame on any voter who falls for hype over substance, fear-mongering and bullying over intellectual power, relevant experience and a history of political and moral commitment to families and workers.

Herbert barely mentions McCain or the republicans as part of this discussion: they will continue to decimate workers and the national infrastructure while enriching themselves and their oil/energy/overseas cronies and buddies.

Herbert may have missed the vision thing in the details of Clinton's policies -- not to mention the bloviating, Hillary haters, attackers, loudmouths and self-indulgent whiners getting so much air time, press and print space, including those at his own paper.

I'm just happy he's finally getting informed about the economic realities of working men, women, families in this nation and that he agrees with me about putting America back to work fixing and rebuilding our infrastructure. Roosevelt would have been proud!

Herbert's column is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/opinion/09herbert.html




Technorati Tags:
, , , , , , ,


Labels: , , , , , , , , , ,

Friday, February 08, 2008

Krugman: Next President Must Have Two Key Attributes for Economic Success

It's the Economy ... and the Incompetency ... and jobs, and healthcare, and interest rates, and housing, and the war ...


From Krugman:

.....some highly respected economists are issuing dire warnings. There has been a lot of buzz about a new paper by Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff that compares the United States in recent years to other advanced countries that have experienced financial crises. They find that the U.S. profile resembles that of the “big five crises,” a list that includes, for example, Sweden’s 1991 crisis, which caused the unemployment rate to soar from 2 percent to 9 percent over a two-year period.

...by January the White House will have a new occupant. If the slump is still going on, which is likely, this will offer a chance to consider other, more effective measures.

We need a new 'put america back to work' public-private initiative

In particular, now would be a good time to think about the possibility of going beyond tax cuts and rebate checks, and stimulating the economy with some much-needed public investment — say, in repairing the country’s crumbling infrastructure.

The usual rap against public spending as a form of economic stimulus is that it takes too long to get going — that by the time the money starts flowing, the recession is already over. But if this turns out to be a prolonged slump, which seems likely, that won’t be a problem.

But we won’t get any innovative action to help the economy unless the next president has a couple of key attributes.

First, he or she has to be free of the ideological blinders that make the current administration and its allies fiercely oppose the idea that the government can do anything positive aside from cutting taxes.

Second, he or she has to be knowledgeable about and interested in economic policy. Presidents don’t have to be their own chief economists, but they do need to know enough to take the right advice.

Will we have that kind of president? Stay tuned.



Here's what I think we need with a new president starting on day one:

a new 'put america back to work' WPA type public-private initiative with a focus on including:

• repairing/updating/improving all aspects of the infrastructure; include job training and career-shift education which puts americans to work in good paying jobs (with benefits) created from public-private partnerships;

• a commitment to oil/gas-free energy independence/green technology/energy innovations (mostly avoid biofuels because it does more harm than good in the long run; see recent research/reports);

• a focus on fast-tracking science and technology education for public schools, community colleges, universities (includes job-training/ed for adults); create public private partnerships and feeder schools in urban, suburban, rural hubs -- those things focus on both items above.

Those are just the off-the-top-of-my-head ideas about what the current admin has failed to do in all its glorious incompetence and abysmal domestic failures and what the next president must be held accountable to do, in addition to healthcare coverages, repairing the damage of the Iraq War, fixing the failing Afghanistan War failures, etc.

and I think it's compatible w/ what Krugman is discussing in today's column.


Krugman's entire column: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/08/opinion/08krugman.html


............................................................

Donate to Hillary Clinton Online

(and any way you can). Fast. Easy. Secure.
............................................................



Technorati Tags:
, , ,


Labels: , , , , , , ,

It's not because she's a woman ...

"Me, I’m voting for Hillary not because she’s a woman—but because I am."



Two insightful must-reads: Judith Warner's blog entry "Like a Fish Needs a Donut" in the NYT and (referenced in Warner's blog entry) Robin Morgan's recent "Goodbye to All That (#2)" essay at the Women's Media Center. As Morgan concludes:

"Me, I’m voting for Hillary not because she’s a woman—but because I am."




Donate to Hillary Clinton Online

(and any way you can). Fast. Easy. Secure.




............................................................



Technorati Tags:
, ,


Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Thursday, February 07, 2008

Hillary Needs Your Donations, Large, Medium or Small!

Donate to Hillary Clinton Online

(and any way you can). Fast. Easy. Secure.




............................................................

More reasons why I support Hillary now -- a clip from the online Politics chat with journalist Ruth Marcus at the Washington Post:


Washington: Despite many observations that support is trending Obama's way, I find myself moving the opposite way. I was extremely impressed with his articulateness and ideas initially; now I hear comparisons to Kennedy, and Obama's laundry list of "we can do this" and "we can do that" and I find myself thinking "where's the beef?"



Before I was old enough to vote, I worked at the polls handing out Kennedy materials. Later, as a Hill intern, I remember many Democrats observing -- often privately -- that the Kennedy administration had been one more of style than substance. (Mrs. Clinton was correct that it took President Johnson to get civil rights and "Great Society" legislation through Congress.) Much as I would like to see the Country elect a black on principle, I have decided that it is better to go with Clinton, who Hill insiders tell me is a competent and hardworking Senator (and that Obama is less so).


Ruth Marcus: This is an interesting and thoughtful reaction. Wonder if others will start to experience the same.



link to the full chat: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/02/03/DI2008020302978.html

Meanwhile, John 'master flip flopper & con artist' Anti-Choice McCain is pandering to the right wing nuts of the CPAC - conservative political action conference - again! We have lots of work to do. No rest for the weary and those who have the most to gain from electing Hillary: American citizens and the world community.



............................................................


Donate to Hillary Clinton TODAY!








Technorati Tags:
, ,


Labels: , , , , ,

Tuesday, February 05, 2008

Primaries 2008 Candidate Updates: Chart Compiled from Media Projections

Super Tuesday Projection Updates: Democrats


Clinton


Obama

Tennessee
Arkansas
Oklahoma
Massachusetts
New York
New Jersey
California*
Georgia
Illinois
Delaware
Alabama
Kansas (caucus, not primary)
Connecticut
Minnesota (caucus)
North Dakota (caucus)
Idaho (caucus)
Colorado (caucus)
Alaska (caucus)

 

 


A list of the democratic delegate counts and the type of Super Tuesday voting (primary or caucus) at wikipedia.

Note: If Hillary wins, I believe it's not about 'racism' (Obama is winning almost 50% of whites, including a higher percentage of white males who have a much deeper affinity toward racism historically). Nope -- it's (partly) about the women voters (and men) in this country having a keen sense of fairness.  There's a strong sense of injustice and unfairness in the media treatment of Hillary; of being sick of rich, white, privileged, elitist, hypocritical, smug, hateful, cruel, punitive, Hillary-obsessed males telling everyone who they must vote for ... combined with major concerns about: Healthcare (Hillary's plan covers everyone), Jobs & Economy (women are paid less, mature women treated poorly), Families, Equality, War -- 400 years of rich (white) men controlling everything and screwing over women (and people of color) a million times more than has ever been imagined or voiced.

I think if Obama wins, everyone who supports Hillary will get behind him gladly (polls released today show 71-72% of Democrats are happy with both candidates and could vote for either). 

But I know there simply are alot of us who are sick and tired of the vitriol and sexism by the overwhelmingly privileged, entitled male journalists, mainstream media (overwhelmingly white, male, bullies -- they are looking more stale by the day), disgustingly biased pundits and misogynist sexist smug bloviators like Chris Tweety Spitball Matthews and Joe Scumbag of MS/NBC (owned by the military industrial complex no-bid contract corporate giant, G.E./General Electric) and the equally disgusting and transparent (and talk about living in the past) Carl Buttstein of CNN/Time Warner -- ugh!

G.E., like Halliburton, is but one of many such war profiteering enterprises who fear Hillary much more than Obama. Why? Because she knows the intricacies of their systems after 15 years of studying it and being attacked by it, and they know she knows how to begin dismantling the machine and the repairing the (largely unknown) damage the rich republicans have done these past 15 years to our Nation (they were in control of Congress until last year). They fear her, they hate her, they know she will begin the deconstruction of their evil webs on day one. They prefer Obama because he'll be easier to defeat; but if he were to win, they know he will be chasing ghosts until he wises up, and that takes years. We don't have years.) Meanwhile, I think Women Boycott MS/NBC would be a good campaign to start after Hillary completes the campaign process.

If women aren't going to take a stand now, of all times in history, then when?

Quick Note: 12PM EST/9PMPST Clinton leading in CA. Obama is talking too long in IL (reminiscent of Bill Clinton's long-windedness?) Jeez. First time I've felt this way while listening to him;  I have to wonder if the more he does that, the more annoying it becomes, especially since there are so few details?

The good thing about the repugs: they're so divided (and divisive) that the half-way honest, everyday regular voters will surely be tired of the incompetence and lies of the repugs these past years (and decades).

*12:10-12:13PM EST/9:13PST Media/networks declare Clinton the winner of the California Primary (although the delegates will be distributed proportionally). Tweety the drooling bully must be truly humiliated! Yay!


Technorati Tags: , , , ,


Labels: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, February 04, 2008

Krugman: Only Clinton Achieves Universal Healthcare, Obama Won't

Universal Health Care: Only One Candidate's Plan Achieves It

(and it sure ain't one of the Republicans)


The New York Times's Economist and Columnist, Paul Krugman's analysis and bottom line: If Clinton gets the Democratic nomination, there is some chance that we’ll get universal health care in the next administration. If Obama gets the nomination, it just won’t happen.


...the difference between the plans could well be the difference between achieving universal health coverage — a key progressive goal — and falling far short.


Obama's plan costs more than 80 percent as much as Clinton's and covers only about half of those 47 million currently uninsured


...the Obama-type plan would cost $4,400 per newly insured person, the Clinton-type plan only $2,700.



That doesn’t look like a trivial difference ... One plan achieves more or less universal coverage; the other, although [Obama's plan] costs more than 80 percent as much, covers only about half of those currently uninsured.


Krugman's complete explanation of his analysis is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04krugman.html

Labels: , , , , , , , , ,

Progressive Women Bloggers Ring
Power By Ringsurf