Monday, November 17, 2008
Friday, July 11, 2008
Charles Kaiser puts it very well
...in this evaluation of Obama's current stances.
Also, the angry Hilary supporters are missing the forest for the trees in a big way, here, but I give one of their organizations, PUMA, a little credit for a hilarious, if counter-productive, name:
Party Unity My Ass.
Also, the angry Hilary supporters are missing the forest for the trees in a big way, here, but I give one of their organizations, PUMA, a little credit for a hilarious, if counter-productive, name:
Party Unity My Ass.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Last Call to Hillary
"If you leave a club at 1 a.m., it was your choice not to get laid. But
if you wait till the club closes, you're ugly, and that's why you didn't
get laid."
- - CHRIS ROCK on Hilary Clinton's end game
if you wait till the club closes, you're ugly, and that's why you didn't
get laid."
- - CHRIS ROCK on Hilary Clinton's end game
Monday, May 12, 2008
From a lawyer poll observer in NC
Below is an email from a lawyer friend-of-a-friend describing what was happening when she worked the polls in North Carolina, what the main voting problems were, and the main issues to understand to improve voter participation. I have been making calls from home, and a post is coming about that, but in the meantime, here's the word from a legal mind at the polls:
folks--an update: yesterday was a marvelous day. i was a poll monitor for obama's campaign, assigned to a predominantly black precinct in high point, nc. by close of the polls, 552 folks had cast their ballots at williams memorial precinct.
folks--an update: yesterday was a marvelous day. i was a poll monitor for obama's campaign, assigned to a predominantly black precinct in high point, nc. by close of the polls, 552 folks had cast their ballots at williams memorial precinct.
my job was to make sure that folks were not innappropriately turned away from the polls and, at regular intervals throughout the day, report to the campaign the total number of voters who had cast their votes. the purpose of regular reporting was to gauge voter turnout at key precincts and, where turnout was lower than expected, my notification would enable the campaign to investigate why, make calls to voters, knock on doors and get folks to the polls before they closed.
most of the problems that i encountered involved:
1. folks being at the wrong precinct because (a) precincts were closed or consolidated and it's questionable whether voters were notified of that fact or (b) people had moved and went to the precinct that their neighbor told them to go to rather than to their old precinct where they were still on the books . . .in these scenarios, generally because inside poll workers failed to research the voter's appropriate precinct, i called an obama hotline and gave people the name of their correct precinct.
2. folks who were not on the books at what would have been their correct precinct, as an agency like the dmv or social services failed to register them . . .
and,
3. inside poll workers discouraging people from going to their correct precinct to cast a regular ballot and encouraging them to cast a provisional ballot (which may or may not be counted) . . .in these cases, myself and my buddies (folks from high point there to pass out campaign literature on behalf of a state senatorial candidate and two district court judicial candidates), encouraged people to go the extra distance and go to their correct precinct.
it's quite an image to walk into a precinct and see only white faces, mostly over 70, sitting behind the booths. between that image, the poll workers cold or lackluster approaches to helping voters (some wouldn't even get up from behind their desks), it becomes more clear why the relationship between citizens and the voting process has eroded. the deep mistrust of the electoral process lives on . . .
when i "worked the polls" in columbia, sc in january, it was rainy and cold, but nonetheless, exciting to witness the droves of people inspired by this election cycle to come out to vote this primary season. yesterday, it was sunny and warm, and joy and pride was in the air. indeed, it was a site to see the obama t-shirts, stickers, fist pumps in the air, smiles, and jumps associated with people so excited to vote. i'm sure you all felt the same way and sensed those shared sentiments when you voted in your respective primaries. people were ready to vote at 6:30 a.m. before going to work, 12:00 p.m. during their lunch brunch, at 3:00 after their work shift ended and up and through 7:30 p.m.
so lessons learned from canvassing and poll monitoring:
1. national politics are significant, and so are local. as much as we need obama as our president, we need obamas to sit on school boards, county commissions, judicial benches, and inside the polls. i can't express how differently the voting process would be if the people sitting behind the booths had warm faces, believed that every vote counts, went out of their way to ensure that every person casts their ballots by hunting down correct precincts, articularing the various forms of Ids that are legally acceptable, were pleasant . . .
2. money matters. many of the people who went to the wrong precincts had moved since they last voted and never regsitered their new address (or re-registered their new address but may not have been notified of their new precincts). it's a luxury to remain in a home for more than a year such that you always receive your mail, your voting precinct is less likely to change . . so, stability is a privilege . . .
3, one-stop registration/early voting is the way to go. w/ one stop early voting, voters can go to any precint in their home county. if this was standard practice throughout the 50 states, then folks would not be turned around and misguided about where they should vote as can be the case case on a normal primary day. 3. teaching young folks about what people have done to secure voting rights for all people is imperative so that when things don't go smoothly at voting booths, lines are long, inside poll workers look at them cross-eyed and purse their wrinkled and pale lips, voters do not give up, but instead go the distance to vote.
4. november is a long way away. everyone can play a roll in getting obama into office. non law students/lawyers can knock on doors and pass out campaign literature, as I did in Mebane, NC. It's easy and fun and a good way to learn what's on people's mind. lawyers, observing the polls on election day in november, as it was on primary days, will be eye opening. we have ways to go to make voting an equal process for all. so help in any way that you can.
toodles folks. change is a coming!
Saturday, May 10, 2008
The question, then, is...
"The question, then, is not what kind of campaign they will run; it's what kind of campaign we will run. It's what we will do to make this year different. You see, I didn't get into this race thinking that I could avoid this kind of politics, but I am running for President because this is the time to end it."
That from this Time Magazine feature by Joe Klein on our boy.
That from this Time Magazine feature by Joe Klein on our boy.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
From a friend: Can we please stop talking about Reverend Wright...NOW?
I got an email the other day from a friend. I read it and thought, this is what the blog was for. I changed up some of the paragraphing to make it easier to read online. Here's what she wrote:
Friends, please indulge me a moment on my soap box..... (apologies!)
As the country talks endlessly about Rev. Wright, what he has said and what Obama has or has not said about him, 24 public school students in his city of Chicago have been gunned down this school year. I just watched this photo gallery... real kids with real stories, not just demographic info in an article.
This is not a Hilary vs. Obama issue I am stumping, I am trying to emphasize the misplaced dialogue in this country. We need to talk about urban warfare in our country... kids taking bullets and firing bullets....
Why are mill workers in NC or unemployed manufacturing workers in PA the only people that matter in this campaign? I am not saying that they shouldn't matter, they should and they do, but who's talking about the kids in Durham, NC who are gunning each other down on the street?
I know its not what gets people votes, I hear that.... but, really, this is shameful. And the ugly truth of it is that each one of those 24 kids was black or Latino. We say that we as a country are talking about race now... that we are really open to it and people feel good if they can still support the black candidate amidst all this controversy. But we are not talking about it all.
50 bullets fired by the NYPD, killing Sean Bell and wounding two others.... and the officers walk out of the courtroom acquitted of all charges, assigned to desk duty in Gramercy Park. As a good friend said to me on Friday, its easy for one to excuse 50 bullets (and a reloading of the weapon) when one does not have to worry that someday a police officer could make an "error in judgment" and shoot 50 bullets at them. She's right.... there is little chance that that could happen to me. I just wish everyone could have the luxury of not having to worry about that.
And this culture of impunity within the justice system does nothing to help dispel the "stop snitching" message which is so antithetical to ending youth violence in places like Chicago, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Brooklyn. It is all part of the same problem...... the Sean Bell verdict makes it even harder to encourage kids to speak up about guns, speak up about who killed a kid on the street, speak up about who fired those bullets that went through an open window and killed a nine-year-old sitting on a couch. Who wants to talk to the police? It doesn't even matter anymore if Cam'ron thinks its uncool.... it's just plain hard to justify talking to the ones who "shot that man in Queens with 50 bullets."
And so, the silence and "lack of cooperation with the police" will continue... and the killers of these 24 Chicago kids will go unpunished and continue to enact violence on the streets.... or go to prison instead for petty drug crimes for a couple of years and come out angrier and more violent than before (and perhaps have contracted HIV in prison due to a lack of prison-issued condoms).
This is what we should be talking about..... Instead we go on and on about the Reverend from Chicago--- who incidentally talks to youth about elevating themselves, making better of their lives, becoming "self reliant"--- yet we are more concerned with what he said about the government and AIDS five years ago, or what he said on 9-12-01, or what he said about Farakhan yesterday.....
Friends, please indulge me a moment on my soap box..... (apologies!)
As the country talks endlessly about Rev. Wright, what he has said and what Obama has or has not said about him, 24 public school students in his city of Chicago have been gunned down this school year. I just watched this photo gallery... real kids with real stories, not just demographic info in an article.
This is not a Hilary vs. Obama issue I am stumping, I am trying to emphasize the misplaced dialogue in this country. We need to talk about urban warfare in our country... kids taking bullets and firing bullets....
Why are mill workers in NC or unemployed manufacturing workers in PA the only people that matter in this campaign? I am not saying that they shouldn't matter, they should and they do, but who's talking about the kids in Durham, NC who are gunning each other down on the street?
I know its not what gets people votes, I hear that.... but, really, this is shameful. And the ugly truth of it is that each one of those 24 kids was black or Latino. We say that we as a country are talking about race now... that we are really open to it and people feel good if they can still support the black candidate amidst all this controversy. But we are not talking about it all.
50 bullets fired by the NYPD, killing Sean Bell and wounding two others.... and the officers walk out of the courtroom acquitted of all charges, assigned to desk duty in Gramercy Park. As a good friend said to me on Friday, its easy for one to excuse 50 bullets (and a reloading of the weapon) when one does not have to worry that someday a police officer could make an "error in judgment" and shoot 50 bullets at them. She's right.... there is little chance that that could happen to me. I just wish everyone could have the luxury of not having to worry about that.
And this culture of impunity within the justice system does nothing to help dispel the "stop snitching" message which is so antithetical to ending youth violence in places like Chicago, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Brooklyn. It is all part of the same problem...... the Sean Bell verdict makes it even harder to encourage kids to speak up about guns, speak up about who killed a kid on the street, speak up about who fired those bullets that went through an open window and killed a nine-year-old sitting on a couch. Who wants to talk to the police? It doesn't even matter anymore if Cam'ron thinks its uncool.... it's just plain hard to justify talking to the ones who "shot that man in Queens with 50 bullets."
And so, the silence and "lack of cooperation with the police" will continue... and the killers of these 24 Chicago kids will go unpunished and continue to enact violence on the streets.... or go to prison instead for petty drug crimes for a couple of years and come out angrier and more violent than before (and perhaps have contracted HIV in prison due to a lack of prison-issued condoms).
This is what we should be talking about..... Instead we go on and on about the Reverend from Chicago--- who incidentally talks to youth about elevating themselves, making better of their lives, becoming "self reliant"--- yet we are more concerned with what he said about the government and AIDS five years ago, or what he said on 9-12-01, or what he said about Farakhan yesterday.....
Friday, April 25, 2008
MADONNA FOR OBAMA!!!!
This revelation closes the New York Magazine's interview with her Majesty. Here's the soundbite:
That’s not nice … Um …
(I'm assuming Bill is in her upcoming AIDS/Malawi documentary.)
Since Madonna for Obama has such a ring to it, I shall procrastinate writing my script for another hour by finding..... MADONNA FOR OBAMA ANAGRAMS! Highlights so far:
Manana, broad of om
A roof bandana mom
A bad man oaf moron
Abandon from a Mao
Baron and oaf ammo
and, finally,
Bandana Ram Of Moo
email me with other possibilities!
Which presidential candidate do you think will make the least huge mistakes?
I’m excited about one of the candidates.
That’s not nice … Um …
(I'm assuming Bill is in her upcoming AIDS/Malawi documentary.)
Since Madonna for Obama has such a ring to it, I shall procrastinate writing my script for another hour by finding..... MADONNA FOR OBAMA ANAGRAMS! Highlights so far:
Manana, broad of om
A roof bandana mom
A bad man oaf moron
Abandon from a Mao
Baron and oaf ammo
and, finally,
Bandana Ram Of Moo
email me with other possibilities!
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Picture of McCain attempts to demonstrate his teeth are real
And this here is, uh, not exactly a "new kind of politics" (or if it is new, it's not exactly noble) but, hell, I laughed. Keep clicking on the text. Picturing this guy. Please don't let this man be our next president.
Wednesday, April 9, 2008
Amending the Constitution to allow Hillary to Govern
This in from a lawyer friend of mine.
A Reno, Nevada man has filed a state lawsuit claiming that the U.S. Constitution would have to be amended to allow Sen. Hillary Clinton to appear on the presidential ballot.
Douglas Wallace, 80, argues that because the constitution refers to "he" and "his" in describing presidential duties, a woman can't hold the office.
"The use of female gendered pronouns 'she' or 'her' are not present in the document, making it conclusive that the framers never intended that a woman would be president of the United States," Wallace wrote in the suit.
Folks are crazy.
But I do think the "he" pronoun in documents intended to refer to both genders does stop people from imagining women in traditionally male roles. I have co-written numerous manuals and text books, and I make a point to switch up the pronouns. Instead of writing "s/he" or "he or she," sometimes I'll use she, sometimes he. I do enjoy inserting "she" in places where we're more accustomed to "he."
For example, I used to write SAT manuals. So I might explain a savvy SAT technique in a sentence like this one:
"The seasoned SAT-taker does not assume that all the data in the problem is useful, or even relevant. She will focus on the question being asked, and determine for herself what information she needs to answer the question."
Anyway, Hillary is really getting on my nerves, but I stand by my original stance on her: I'm grateful for her candidacy because I think that the nationwide undertaking of imagination that can conceive of a woman President of the United States has shifted what we see as possible. As a country we hadn't gone there yet. Now we have.
A Reno, Nevada man has filed a state lawsuit claiming that the U.S. Constitution would have to be amended to allow Sen. Hillary Clinton to appear on the presidential ballot.
Douglas Wallace, 80, argues that because the constitution refers to "he" and "his" in describing presidential duties, a woman can't hold the office.
"The use of female gendered pronouns 'she' or 'her' are not present in the document, making it conclusive that the framers never intended that a woman would be president of the United States," Wallace wrote in the suit.
Folks are crazy.
But I do think the "he" pronoun in documents intended to refer to both genders does stop people from imagining women in traditionally male roles. I have co-written numerous manuals and text books, and I make a point to switch up the pronouns. Instead of writing "s/he" or "he or she," sometimes I'll use she, sometimes he. I do enjoy inserting "she" in places where we're more accustomed to "he."
For example, I used to write SAT manuals. So I might explain a savvy SAT technique in a sentence like this one:
"The seasoned SAT-taker does not assume that all the data in the problem is useful, or even relevant. She will focus on the question being asked, and determine for herself what information she needs to answer the question."
Anyway, Hillary is really getting on my nerves, but I stand by my original stance on her: I'm grateful for her candidacy because I think that the nationwide undertaking of imagination that can conceive of a woman President of the United States has shifted what we see as possible. As a country we hadn't gone there yet. Now we have.
Wednesday, March 26, 2008
I am not going to explain why Reverend Wright is a great spiritual leader
Never for a second did I believe Reverend Jeremiah Wright had to be pardoned, explained away, dissociated from, etc. by Barack or anyone. I understood without reading this kind of article both how effective he has proved himself to be as a spiritual leader and how a type of comfort he offers his congregation is to voice some "damn this place is fucked up"-type thoughts.
Because, it is. And everyone knows it. And if not everyone, a whoooole lotta people in the south side of Chicago know it, whether their preacher tells it to them or not.
Anyway, I just wanted to dedicate one post to this link: the full text of his 1990 sermon called "The Audacity to Hope."
This is the painting he's referring to, entitled "Hope" by George Frederick Watts.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
She 'Misspoke' about being FIRED AT BY A SNIPER????
WTF???
HOW TO YOU GET A STORY WRONG ABOUT BEING SHOT AT BY A SNIPER?!?!
I mean, "fired at by a sniper" doesn't have some secondary meaning I'm not aware of, right? Like after a long weekend, when you keep getting what day it is wrong, do we call that "getting fired at by a sniper?" No, right? We use those words to talk about a person with a gun, taking aim, and pulling a trigger and bullets coming out, and the bullets are near you in a bad way.
So how is Hillary gonna be like "my bad, when I said I was getting fired at by a sniper in Bosnia, I really meant...um, that I wasn't getting fired at. I misspoke." ??????????
Hey kids, next time your teachers and parents catch you lying, just explain that you misspoke.
Also, did she think she'd get away with that, both the lie and the explanation (misspeaking)??? I mean, we might be stupid but no one is that stupid. I can't hit the question mark button (control slash control slash control slash control slash) enough to satisfy how baffled I am by her attempt to pull this off.
'Cause like, you know, wouldn't we all remember the headline about a SNIPER IN BOSNIA taking a shot at the FIRST LADY AND TEENAGE DAUGHTER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES? That would have been a really big story, and every time someone did a subsequent story about assassination attempts, the secret service, personal security of dignitaries, blah blah, the SNIPER IN BOSNIA SHOOTING AT HILLARY would have been mentioned. This woman has lost her mind.
Whew. Okay. Calm down, Kate.
Backing up: if you're not caught up, here's the story:
As part of her argument that she has the best experience and instincts to deal with a sudden crisis as president, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton recently offered a vivid description of having to run across a tarmac to avoid sniper fire after landing in Bosnia as first lady in 1996.
Yet on Monday, Mrs. Clinton admitted that she “misspoke” about the episode — a concession that came after CBS News showed footage of her walking calmly across the tarmac with her daughter, Chelsea, and being greeted by dignitaries and a child.
And here's the footage of her walking across the tarmac with Chelsea.
HOW TO YOU GET A STORY WRONG ABOUT BEING SHOT AT BY A SNIPER?!?!
I mean, "fired at by a sniper" doesn't have some secondary meaning I'm not aware of, right? Like after a long weekend, when you keep getting what day it is wrong, do we call that "getting fired at by a sniper?" No, right? We use those words to talk about a person with a gun, taking aim, and pulling a trigger and bullets coming out, and the bullets are near you in a bad way.
So how is Hillary gonna be like "my bad, when I said I was getting fired at by a sniper in Bosnia, I really meant...um, that I wasn't getting fired at. I misspoke." ??????????
Hey kids, next time your teachers and parents catch you lying, just explain that you misspoke.
Also, did she think she'd get away with that, both the lie and the explanation (misspeaking)??? I mean, we might be stupid but no one is that stupid. I can't hit the question mark button (control slash control slash control slash control slash) enough to satisfy how baffled I am by her attempt to pull this off.
'Cause like, you know, wouldn't we all remember the headline about a SNIPER IN BOSNIA taking a shot at the FIRST LADY AND TEENAGE DAUGHTER OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES? That would have been a really big story, and every time someone did a subsequent story about assassination attempts, the secret service, personal security of dignitaries, blah blah, the SNIPER IN BOSNIA SHOOTING AT HILLARY would have been mentioned. This woman has lost her mind.
Whew. Okay. Calm down, Kate.
Backing up: if you're not caught up, here's the story:
As part of her argument that she has the best experience and instincts to deal with a sudden crisis as president, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton recently offered a vivid description of having to run across a tarmac to avoid sniper fire after landing in Bosnia as first lady in 1996.
Yet on Monday, Mrs. Clinton admitted that she “misspoke” about the episode — a concession that came after CBS News showed footage of her walking calmly across the tarmac with her daughter, Chelsea, and being greeted by dignitaries and a child.
And here's the footage of her walking across the tarmac with Chelsea.
Two opinions on the Hillary campaign
...neither of which I can take credit for, but both of which I like.
One is here. It is David Brooks, a conservative who doesn't hate liberals, in today's Times. The most alarming bits are these:
Last week, an important Clinton adviser told Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen (also of Politico) that Clinton had no more than a 10 percent chance of getting the nomination. Now, she’s probably down to a 5 percent chance....
The Democratic Party is probably going to have to endure another three months of daily sniping....
For the sake of that 5 percent, this will be the sourest spring. About a fifth of Clinton and Obama supporters now say they wouldn’t vote for the other candidate in the general election. Meanwhile, on the other side, voters get an unobstructed view of the Republican nominee. John McCain’s approval ratings have soared 11 points. He is now viewed positively by 67 percent of Americans. A month ago, McCain was losing to Obama among independents by double digits in a general election matchup. NOW MCCAIN HAS A LEAD AMONG THIS GROUP.
1) Every time she attacks Obama now she seems like a spoilsport in the eyes of a growing consensus of party leaders.
2) Her strategy now... has to be to wait for Obama to make a horrendous mistake.... If she cedes the field and lets Obama battle McCain for a few months, it’s possible that Obama will make such a mistake, proving himself unworthy to face a strong Republican opponent. If he screws up by late August, Clinton can ride to the rescue at the convention.
3) She’s got no money. Actually, that’s not quite true — she’s got a big chunk of money that she has to hold in reserve for the general election. If she suspends her campaign for now, she’ll stop losing funds.
By the way, here the Times reporting on how the Hillary campaign finance problems have her stiffing her vendors, even when she owes them as little $2,500.
One is here. It is David Brooks, a conservative who doesn't hate liberals, in today's Times. The most alarming bits are these:
Last week, an important Clinton adviser told Jim VandeHei and Mike Allen (also of Politico) that Clinton had no more than a 10 percent chance of getting the nomination. Now, she’s probably down to a 5 percent chance....
The Democratic Party is probably going to have to endure another three months of daily sniping....
For the sake of that 5 percent, this will be the sourest spring. About a fifth of Clinton and Obama supporters now say they wouldn’t vote for the other candidate in the general election. Meanwhile, on the other side, voters get an unobstructed view of the Republican nominee. John McCain’s approval ratings have soared 11 points. He is now viewed positively by 67 percent of Americans. A month ago, McCain was losing to Obama among independents by double digits in a general election matchup. NOW MCCAIN HAS A LEAD AMONG THIS GROUP.
For three more months, Clinton is likely to hurt Obama even more against McCain, without hurting him against herself. And all this is happening so she can preserve that 5 percent chance.
The second Hillary campaign opinion I like is here, from some lovely blogger name Dillon at Backalleymedia.org. Dillon suggests Hillary suspend her campaign for these reasons:1) Every time she attacks Obama now she seems like a spoilsport in the eyes of a growing consensus of party leaders.
2) Her strategy now... has to be to wait for Obama to make a horrendous mistake.... If she cedes the field and lets Obama battle McCain for a few months, it’s possible that Obama will make such a mistake, proving himself unworthy to face a strong Republican opponent. If he screws up by late August, Clinton can ride to the rescue at the convention.
3) She’s got no money. Actually, that’s not quite true — she’s got a big chunk of money that she has to hold in reserve for the general election. If she suspends her campaign for now, she’ll stop losing funds.
By the way, here the Times reporting on how the Hillary campaign finance problems have her stiffing her vendors, even when she owes them as little $2,500.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Ready for a shock?
Hillary supported NAFTA from the beginning. In November, 1993, she briefed 120 government officials, no press allowed, on NAFTA.
We must be able to assume this wasn't a briefing on why not to adopt her husband's project, right? From Talking Points Memo:
Wait, am I to understand that, her claim to have brokered peace in Northern Ireland wasn't the only thing she's misrepresented about herself?
At least she's been "saying from the very beginning" "as I've said all along" that she regrets her Iraq war vote.
Ay ay ay.
P.S.
By the way, if the NAFTA debate interests you, here's economics journalist Daniel Gross in Newsweek about how NAFTA is a manufactured argument (pun not intended but I'm leaving it there) because the jobs lost in Ohio and Pennsylvania are going to China, not Mexico or Canada. My guess is factory jobs in Texas are still going just over the border, though. Anyway, from Gross's article:
Yes, U.S. imports from Mexico have risen sharply since 1993, from $48 billion to $216 billion in 2006. But U.S. exports to Mexico have tripled in the same period, from $52 billion to $156 billion.
We must be able to assume this wasn't a briefing on why not to adopt her husband's project, right? From Talking Points Memo:
Among the thousands of details of daily life for Clinton, there was a Nov. 10, 1993, entry -- a "NAFTA Briefing drop-by," in Room 450 of the executive office building next door to the White House, closed to the news media.
Approximately 120 people were expected to attend the briefing, and Clinton was to be introduced by White House aide Alexis Herman for brief remarks concluding the program.
But wait, I don't get it. She said in the February 21st Texas debate and the February 26th Ohio debate that she "opposed NAFTA from the beginning!" You mean, she misrepresented her role and position as first lady?Wait, am I to understand that, her claim to have brokered peace in Northern Ireland wasn't the only thing she's misrepresented about herself?
At least she's been "saying from the very beginning" "as I've said all along" that she regrets her Iraq war vote.
Ay ay ay.
P.S.
By the way, if the NAFTA debate interests you, here's economics journalist Daniel Gross in Newsweek about how NAFTA is a manufactured argument (pun not intended but I'm leaving it there) because the jobs lost in Ohio and Pennsylvania are going to China, not Mexico or Canada. My guess is factory jobs in Texas are still going just over the border, though. Anyway, from Gross's article:
There's something outdated and Kabuki-like about the whole NAFTA drama, which was manufactured largely for consumption in Ohio and probably won't be going on a national tour.
Nationally, China has long since displaced Mexico as the bugaboo on trade issues.Yes, U.S. imports from Mexico have risen sharply since 1993, from $48 billion to $216 billion in 2006. But U.S. exports to Mexico have tripled in the same period, from $52 billion to $156 billion.
The New Democratic Party?
The message below is from an email from the Obama campaign, who sent it out the day after the victory in Mississippi.
Since Reagan got elected, Democrats have conceded the middle and south of the country from the onset, and instead focus on those crucial swings states. This is bad for two reasons:
1) It encourages the Democrats to ignore the needs of people in non-swing states on the campaign trail, which means their issues are more likely to be ignored once a Democrat is in office (footnote: Bill Clinton); and
2) It has put the Democrats on the defensive: having already conceded such a huge part of the country, we spend all this money and time in Florida, Michigan and other "important" states, trying to show that we're tough on crime, or not offensively pro-choice, or are actually kinder to the working class, or are people you'd love to get a beer with... in other words, the red/blue/swing-state electoral map of the past eight years has made the race the Republicans to win and the Democrats to lose.
The Obama campaign's "unity" cry is not just a pretty idea--it's a lean, mean campaign strategy. They don't assume that places like Kansas and Nebraska are out of play for us. There are some states that are not "winner take all" electoral votes in the general election, but they have been 100% Republican the last few times around. There's poll data suggesting Obama counld change that.
One of the biggest problems with Democratic presidential campaigns is the assumption--or, fine, the knowledge--that some parts of the map are irrelevant to a Democratic victory. So when your campaign is deciding where to spend money, man-power, and the candidate's precious time, ignoring those places is probably a sound judgment call.
But when the people in those written off red states start to get upset that their family members are being forced to serve third and forth terms in Iraq, when they, yes, need an abortion, when they see a Will and Grace re-run and the possibility of not being a closeted gay person seizes their imagination--when conservative, christian-right-wing dogma proves insufficient--what political spectrum will be laid out before them?
A great thing about this prolonged battle for the Democratic nomination--and a great aspect of Obama's campaign organization--is that it's brought Democratic visibility to these places. When Kansas and Missouri turn on the news, or pick up the paper, there's Hillary and Barack. And therefore, the issues being batted around are not only the evils of stem cell research and whether exceptions to abortion prohibition are acceptable when a woman is raped, but also, do you have health care? How fast should we bring soldiers home?
The parameters of the debate widen enormously when Democrats come to town in a red state.
Whether he wins the nomination, Obama's campaign is moving the party forward by making Howard Dean's "50-State Strategy" more of a reality. When Hillary asks us to focus on "states that matter" (her campaign's "insult-40-states" strategy) she asks us to view the Gore/Kerry campaign strategy as, not only the best strategy, but the only possible strategy.
And how'd they work out in '00 and '04?
Obama could be for Democrats what Reagan was for Republicans: the person who brings an enormous new tide of voters to the party. Voters who are therefore many times more likely to be voting Democrats for life.
Unlike the most recent injection of voters to the Republican party, Obama's first-time voters aren't the Jesus-loves-guns variety. We're people who are ready for candid discussions of race in America; we're people for whom going to war needs irrefutable justification; we're people who are proud to have read books about something other than the apocalypse; we're people who understand the crucial importance of legal, widely available abortions; we're people who respect the rule of law, civil liberties, and people who live outside America; we don't believe the earth is 5,000 years old.
In other words, we're people who really should be voting in America right now.
The new voters being drawn into the race could become the constituency that allows Democrats to stand up and be Democrats for America, not Democrats for moderate Republicans.
I found at realclearpolitics.com this quote from a Republican media consultant, Alex Castellanos. (He consulted for Bush and Romney.)
“I am not out to knee-cap the front-runner, because I don’t think that’s what the country is looking for.” -Barack Obama, October 2007
When we won Iowa, the Clinton campaign said it's not the number of states you win, it's "a contest for delegates."
When we won a significant lead in delegates, they said it's really about which states you win.
When we won South Carolina, they discounted the votes of African-Americans.
When we won predominantly white, rural states like Idaho, Utah, and Nebraska, they said those didn't count because they won't be competitive in the general election.
When we won in Washington State, Wisconsin, and Missouri -- general election battlegrounds where polls show Barack is a stronger candidate against John McCain -- the Clinton campaign attacked those voters as "latte-sipping" elitists.
And now that we've won more than twice as many states, the Clinton spin is that only certain states really count.
...For all their attempts to discount, distract, and distort, we have won more delegates, more states, and more votes.
Meanwhile, more than half of the votes that Senator Clinton has won so far have come from just five states. And in four of these five states, polls show that Barack would be a stronger general election candidate against McCain than Clinton.
Now... we move on to the next ten contests. The Clinton campaign would like to focus your attention only on Pennsylvania -- a state in which they have already declared that they are "unbeatable." But Pennsylvania is only one of those 10 remaining contests, each important in terms of allocating delegates and ultimately deciding who our nominee will be. We have activated our volunteer networks in each of these upcoming battlegrounds. We're putting staff on the ground and building our organization everywhere. The key to victory is not who wins the states that the Clinton campaign thinks are important. The key to victory is realizing that every vote and every voter matters.
Since Reagan got elected, Democrats have conceded the middle and south of the country from the onset, and instead focus on those crucial swings states. This is bad for two reasons:
1) It encourages the Democrats to ignore the needs of people in non-swing states on the campaign trail, which means their issues are more likely to be ignored once a Democrat is in office (footnote: Bill Clinton); and
2) It has put the Democrats on the defensive: having already conceded such a huge part of the country, we spend all this money and time in Florida, Michigan and other "important" states, trying to show that we're tough on crime, or not offensively pro-choice, or are actually kinder to the working class, or are people you'd love to get a beer with... in other words, the red/blue/swing-state electoral map of the past eight years has made the race the Republicans to win and the Democrats to lose.
The Obama campaign's "unity" cry is not just a pretty idea--it's a lean, mean campaign strategy. They don't assume that places like Kansas and Nebraska are out of play for us. There are some states that are not "winner take all" electoral votes in the general election, but they have been 100% Republican the last few times around. There's poll data suggesting Obama counld change that.
One of the biggest problems with Democratic presidential campaigns is the assumption--or, fine, the knowledge--that some parts of the map are irrelevant to a Democratic victory. So when your campaign is deciding where to spend money, man-power, and the candidate's precious time, ignoring those places is probably a sound judgment call.
But when the people in those written off red states start to get upset that their family members are being forced to serve third and forth terms in Iraq, when they, yes, need an abortion, when they see a Will and Grace re-run and the possibility of not being a closeted gay person seizes their imagination--when conservative, christian-right-wing dogma proves insufficient--what political spectrum will be laid out before them?
A great thing about this prolonged battle for the Democratic nomination--and a great aspect of Obama's campaign organization--is that it's brought Democratic visibility to these places. When Kansas and Missouri turn on the news, or pick up the paper, there's Hillary and Barack. And therefore, the issues being batted around are not only the evils of stem cell research and whether exceptions to abortion prohibition are acceptable when a woman is raped, but also, do you have health care? How fast should we bring soldiers home?
The parameters of the debate widen enormously when Democrats come to town in a red state.
Whether he wins the nomination, Obama's campaign is moving the party forward by making Howard Dean's "50-State Strategy" more of a reality. When Hillary asks us to focus on "states that matter" (her campaign's "insult-40-states" strategy) she asks us to view the Gore/Kerry campaign strategy as, not only the best strategy, but the only possible strategy.
And how'd they work out in '00 and '04?
Obama could be for Democrats what Reagan was for Republicans: the person who brings an enormous new tide of voters to the party. Voters who are therefore many times more likely to be voting Democrats for life.
Unlike the most recent injection of voters to the Republican party, Obama's first-time voters aren't the Jesus-loves-guns variety. We're people who are ready for candid discussions of race in America; we're people for whom going to war needs irrefutable justification; we're people who are proud to have read books about something other than the apocalypse; we're people who understand the crucial importance of legal, widely available abortions; we're people who respect the rule of law, civil liberties, and people who live outside America; we don't believe the earth is 5,000 years old.
In other words, we're people who really should be voting in America right now.
The new voters being drawn into the race could become the constituency that allows Democrats to stand up and be Democrats for America, not Democrats for moderate Republicans.
I found at realclearpolitics.com this quote from a Republican media consultant, Alex Castellanos. (He consulted for Bush and Romney.)
"Obama is the hope and future of the Democratic Party, not Hillary, and everyone knows it. He is the one bringing new energy and voters. He could be a Democratic Reagan, invigorating the party for 25 years. If the Clinton people knee-cap Obama, it would be like killing Santa Claus Christmas morning in front of the children. The children won't forget or forgive."
By contrast, I dig up this quotation from October, i.e. a lifetime ago, when Hillary had a 30 point nationwide lead and was, undoubtedly, the front runner in the race.“I am not out to knee-cap the front-runner, because I don’t think that’s what the country is looking for.” -Barack Obama, October 2007
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
A good idea: move up the superdelegate vote
Tennessee Governor and policy chairman of the Democratic Governor's Association says, if we don't have a clear nominee by the end of the June primaries, we should move up the superdelegate vote, from the August convention to June. This would spare us three months of infighting, precious time much better spent building the race against McCain.
Makes sense to me.
Makes sense to me.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Charles Kaiser on The Speech
The Lincoln quote at the end of this is perfectly appropriate. Thanks, Charlie.
This is required viewing
This speech is not the words of a man trying to win the presidency. The message is from a man with conviction and insight and candor, who, in hoping we hear this message above petty sound-bites and racial baiting, expects more from us than any politician I have encountered in my life time. It's 37 minutes.
Make sure you get to the end. He couldn't have laid out our two choices more starkly.
(Full text of the speech is here. Teachers, assign it to your students. Regardless of the Democratic nomination, this speech was history--history which we're living now. )
Make sure you get to the end. He couldn't have laid out our two choices more starkly.
(Full text of the speech is here. Teachers, assign it to your students. Regardless of the Democratic nomination, this speech was history--history which we're living now. )
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
More than a "wee bit silly"
Hillary: (to CNN last Wednesday) "I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland."
The Telegraph wrote this in response to Hillary's claim that her experience includes brokering peace in Northern Ireland. (I'm a little late posting it, sorry.)
Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey: (Nobel Peace Prize winner and former First Minister of the province) said Hillary was a "wee bit silly" for exaggerating the part she played in bringing peace to Northern Ireland. "I don’t know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill going around. I don’t want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player."
Hillary: I remember a meeting that I pulled together in Belfast, in the town hall there, bringing together for the first time Catholics and Protestants from both traditions...it was only in large measure because I really asked them to come that they were there.
The article doesn't provide a lot of support for the following sentence, but it's too good to leave out:
Steven King, a negotiator with Lord Trimble’s Ulster Unionist Party, argued that Mrs Clinton might even have helped delay the chances of peace.
Is it appropriate to launch my first LOL into the blogosphere?
So. There you go. Her experience is not in Northern Ireland but in political spinning.
The Telegraph wrote this in response to Hillary's claim that her experience includes brokering peace in Northern Ireland. (I'm a little late posting it, sorry.)
Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey: (Nobel Peace Prize winner and former First Minister of the province) said Hillary was a "wee bit silly" for exaggerating the part she played in bringing peace to Northern Ireland. "I don’t know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill going around. I don’t want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player."
Hillary: I remember a meeting that I pulled together in Belfast, in the town hall there, bringing together for the first time Catholics and Protestants from both traditions...it was only in large measure because I really asked them to come that they were there.
And I wasn’t sure it was going to be very successful and finally a Catholic woman on one side of the table said, ’You know, every time my husband leaves for work in the morning I worry he won’t come home at night.
And then a Protestant woman on the other side said, ’Every time my son tries to go out at night I worry he won’t come home again’. And suddenly instead of seeing each other as caricatures and stereotypes they saw each other as human beings and the slow, hard work of peace-making could move forward.
Telegraph: There is no record of a meeting at Belfast City Hall, though Mrs Clinton attended a ceremony there when her husband turned on the Christmas tree lights in November 1995.The article doesn't provide a lot of support for the following sentence, but it's too good to leave out:
Steven King, a negotiator with Lord Trimble’s Ulster Unionist Party, argued that Mrs Clinton might even have helped delay the chances of peace.
Is it appropriate to launch my first LOL into the blogosphere?
So. There you go. Her experience is not in Northern Ireland but in political spinning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
