So if the 1960s and 1970s were so formative and influential what happened to the Pat and Bay Buchanans, the Rush Limbaughs of this world? The latter two were in there 20s and Pat Buchanan was in his late 30s, an age not beyond redemption, despite the phrase that has become so associated with the times. Were they under a rock during this period, snoozing like right-wing Rip van Winkles for decades as the nine-pins thundered all around them?
While this question is a difficult one to answer, we are getting a glimpse into the way they and younger acolytes such as Ann Coulter think as they respond to—horror or horrors—the possibility of John McCain as the Republican Party’s nominee.
To listen to them talk, McCain is the second coming of George McGovern, the liberal Democrat who went down to defeat against Nixon in the 1972 Presidential campaign, a man more dangerous than a serial child molester. Coulter said recently that if McCain is the party’s nominee she will even campaign for Clinton. Limbaugh spends his days whipping his moronic listeners into a frenzy, bellowing that McCain represents the end of the Republican Party and all that it stands for. And Bay Buchanan thunders that if McCain doesn’t pander to conservatives by at least featuring Romney prominently as a speaker at the Republican convention (the dead horse she was advising until his recent withdrawal), they’ll make him pay by undermining his campaign and not voting for him.
It is really something to see the Republican unity, and Republican values, isn’t it? The “if I don’t win, I am taking my marbles (or pet candidate) and going home” crowd. In addition to the sour grapes expressed by Buchanan, et. al., someone on conservative talk radio inanely said the other day that sometimes it doesn’t hurt to lose an election, so that people will see just how terrible things can be (under a Democrat). Fine values, all, to teach the youngsters. Because George Bush and his administration are also spiteful, selfish, and mean-spirited, it appears that the right-wing fringe has made the mistake of thinking that it is mainstream, that its views are, in fact, as Bay Buchanan furiously croaked, the “pillars” of the Republican party.
And so the real answer, it seems, to the question, “where were these neanderthals in the 1960s and 1970s,” is that they were exactly where they are now--looking out only for themselves, oblivious to what is going on around them, and trying mightily to show their relevance to a party that has never needed them and which may be moving on without them.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Saturday, February 9, 2008
The Spirit of 1969--Part 1
The race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama is fascinating on several levels, not the least of which, to me, is that it brings back some old memories and reminds me that the idealism, ferment, and activism of the 1960s and 1970s continues to influence this country. When I see Clinton and Obama battling it out for the Democratic nomination, I get a glimpse of the society that Clinton and others like her envisioned, a society where racism, gender equality, and uncritical acceptance of the actions of those in power were vigorously challenged.
In 1969, when Clinton was a senior at Wellesley, my dad was a professor on the other side of the country in Washington State. Like a lot of colleges and universities, there were cell groups, earnest discussions about politics and authority, and some silly behavior too, but by and large students were energized, active, and idealistic. After what seem now like almost quaint battles over whether women could pants in class and whether colleges and universities could exercise almost parental authority over their students, the protests became a genuine cultural movement with people refusing to allow race or class or the way they were brought up to be proscriptive, working to undermine these through politics or on a more personal level through travel, spiritualism, alternative lifestyles, drugs.
Motivated primarily by a desire to transform society instead of making money or climbing the corporate ladder, many of those baby boomers, became journalists, activist lawyers, doctors, teachers, and politicians. Others continue to live lives based on goals quite different than those of their parents and grandparents. Many remain active and committed to their ideals and have transformed American society by heading up local community improvement projects to running for President of the United States. My parents weren’t radical and they weren’t hippies but they ended up as transformed as many of my dad’s students, often working with people as dedicated and indomitable as Hillary Clinton to end the war in Vietnam to bring about civil rights for blacks, and to focus attention on poverty.
Clinton isn’t free from the less noble desires that drive other politicians, and she sometimes practices the kind of politics she probably abhorred as a college student or young lawyer advocating on behalf of children. That said, I feel like I know something about her or her motivations, anyway. I know less about Obama, but all indications are that he is driven by many of the same things as Clinton, though has taken a somewhat different path to get there. He, too, has been at the head of the class in most everything he does and, like Clinton, who went from Yale Law School to a non-paying position advocating for children, Obama went from Harvard’s law school to organizing people on the mean streets of Chicago. He also has some experiences that Clinton does not--living abroad and navigating racial obstacles in this country—that should inform his domestic and international policies in a way that would be good for this country.
So when I see Clinton and Obama rushing around to get caucus votes in my native state of Washington today, I will think of my dad, who took me to my first caucus years ago, and who died last year, and how happy he would have been to see these two candidates seriously competing for the Presidency of the U.S. He would never have said it himself but he too, could be proud, of his role, however small in something that, if not a revolution exactly, continues to bring about some profound changes in this country.
In 1969, when Clinton was a senior at Wellesley, my dad was a professor on the other side of the country in Washington State. Like a lot of colleges and universities, there were cell groups, earnest discussions about politics and authority, and some silly behavior too, but by and large students were energized, active, and idealistic. After what seem now like almost quaint battles over whether women could pants in class and whether colleges and universities could exercise almost parental authority over their students, the protests became a genuine cultural movement with people refusing to allow race or class or the way they were brought up to be proscriptive, working to undermine these through politics or on a more personal level through travel, spiritualism, alternative lifestyles, drugs.
Motivated primarily by a desire to transform society instead of making money or climbing the corporate ladder, many of those baby boomers, became journalists, activist lawyers, doctors, teachers, and politicians. Others continue to live lives based on goals quite different than those of their parents and grandparents. Many remain active and committed to their ideals and have transformed American society by heading up local community improvement projects to running for President of the United States. My parents weren’t radical and they weren’t hippies but they ended up as transformed as many of my dad’s students, often working with people as dedicated and indomitable as Hillary Clinton to end the war in Vietnam to bring about civil rights for blacks, and to focus attention on poverty.
Clinton isn’t free from the less noble desires that drive other politicians, and she sometimes practices the kind of politics she probably abhorred as a college student or young lawyer advocating on behalf of children. That said, I feel like I know something about her or her motivations, anyway. I know less about Obama, but all indications are that he is driven by many of the same things as Clinton, though has taken a somewhat different path to get there. He, too, has been at the head of the class in most everything he does and, like Clinton, who went from Yale Law School to a non-paying position advocating for children, Obama went from Harvard’s law school to organizing people on the mean streets of Chicago. He also has some experiences that Clinton does not--living abroad and navigating racial obstacles in this country—that should inform his domestic and international policies in a way that would be good for this country.
So when I see Clinton and Obama rushing around to get caucus votes in my native state of Washington today, I will think of my dad, who took me to my first caucus years ago, and who died last year, and how happy he would have been to see these two candidates seriously competing for the Presidency of the U.S. He would never have said it himself but he too, could be proud, of his role, however small in something that, if not a revolution exactly, continues to bring about some profound changes in this country.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Midnight for Mitt
Mitt, We Hardly Knew ‘Ya.
And that is a good thing, I guess. Mitt Romney announced today that he is out of the Republican race and I’ll admit to having mixed feelings. Not because I am especially fond of the brilliantined dandy, but because he has added a bit of character to a generally boring Republican race, and I’ll miss him for that. I’ll also miss the heated emails or animated responses to posts about Romney on the web from my brother who had a genuinely outsized loathing for Mitt and all he stands for, or doesn't stand for, or maybe stands for. There is hardly a website string featuring Romney that my bro has not responded to, eloquently and analytically skewering the man o’ plastic for opportunistically changing his position on nearly everything and it has been a lot of fun stumbling on his rants. But I will miss Mitt most because he would have been a great punching bag for the Democratic nominee. Alas, it isn’t going to happen now and the Democrats will have to deal with McCain and perhaps his “sidekick,” Mike Huckabee, a potential VP and pall bearer for the rich and famous if ever there were one.
As he slumbers while others are campaigning, Mitt will be seeing the former Arkansas Governor in his nightmares, that’s for sure, though it is unlikely that Mitt would have gone all the way or even done particularly well in the southern Super Tuesday primaries even if the Huckster hadn't been there to poke him in the eye. American politics are odd though and just as Nixon once famously said that American voters wouldn’t have him to “kick around” anymore, only to infamously return to the scene as President some time later, we may well see Mitt on the political scene again sometime, somewhere, transfigured perhaps as a cross-dressing liberal from SF or whatever form it takes to get him into the game, even for a little while.
And that is a good thing, I guess. Mitt Romney announced today that he is out of the Republican race and I’ll admit to having mixed feelings. Not because I am especially fond of the brilliantined dandy, but because he has added a bit of character to a generally boring Republican race, and I’ll miss him for that. I’ll also miss the heated emails or animated responses to posts about Romney on the web from my brother who had a genuinely outsized loathing for Mitt and all he stands for, or doesn't stand for, or maybe stands for. There is hardly a website string featuring Romney that my bro has not responded to, eloquently and analytically skewering the man o’ plastic for opportunistically changing his position on nearly everything and it has been a lot of fun stumbling on his rants. But I will miss Mitt most because he would have been a great punching bag for the Democratic nominee. Alas, it isn’t going to happen now and the Democrats will have to deal with McCain and perhaps his “sidekick,” Mike Huckabee, a potential VP and pall bearer for the rich and famous if ever there were one.
As he slumbers while others are campaigning, Mitt will be seeing the former Arkansas Governor in his nightmares, that’s for sure, though it is unlikely that Mitt would have gone all the way or even done particularly well in the southern Super Tuesday primaries even if the Huckster hadn't been there to poke him in the eye. American politics are odd though and just as Nixon once famously said that American voters wouldn’t have him to “kick around” anymore, only to infamously return to the scene as President some time later, we may well see Mitt on the political scene again sometime, somewhere, transfigured perhaps as a cross-dressing liberal from SF or whatever form it takes to get him into the game, even for a little while.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Rube Goldberg (D-US)
Rube Goldberg, misguided Democrat. At least the Democratic nominating process certainly appears to reflect his handiwork: a big clunky apparatus which ensures a convoluted and tortuous path to what should be a pretty straightforward end. On the one hand, the assigning of delegates based on proportional representation would seem to assure that all votes count, unlike the Republican nominating and Electoral College processes, in which the winner takes all delegates in a state. On the other hand, the super delegates and even the caucuses make the proportional representation meaningless and permit the process to drag on for no reason. Or at least this is the case in very close races.
Last night confirmed that Clinton and Obama will likely be in a tight race for some time. Despite Clinton winning California and New York, Obama’s crack strategy of taking most of the delegates from the caucus states, states with a high percentage of black votes, and gouging into Clinton’s leads in places in blue states by nabbing generally, wealthy suburban liberals is keeping him in this race. For at least the next month or so Obama and Clinton will be trading victories—Obama likely winning Maryland and the District of Columbia, and the caucus states of Nebraska and Louisiana over the next two weeks, and Clinton probably winning Ohio and Texas in early March. It is very possible, then, that the superdelegates will ultimately decide this race, making a mockery of the notion of proportional representation and that every vote counts.
As undemocratic as the scenario may be, Democrats may want the super delegates to save them from themselves. The voting last night was as close as can be as are the current delegate totals, but there are some very troubling signs for Democrats should Obama make it through the primaries and become the party’s nominee. Troubling, because his support was primarily from liberals, blacks and younger whites, constituencies that cannot alone put him over the top in November.
Obama won all of the caucus states yesterday, where only the most motivated and generally liberal of the Democratic party turn out, and states like Georgia and Alabama which have high percentage of black voters. In other conservative states that do not have a high percentage of black voters, such as Arkansas, Arizona, Oklahoma, and Tennessee, Clinton won handily. In Tennessee, for example, Clinton won 71 percent of white voters age 45 and older (44 percent of all voters and well over 50 percent of the same age group in Oklahoma). This is an important distinction because whoever the eventual Democrat nominee is, he or she is going to have to have at least some appeal to these kinds of white voters—more conservative, less educated, and making less money otherwise Obama will do no better than McGovern or Dukakis, other liberal Democrats that won the party’s nomination only to be trounced by the Republican nominees. Except for Utah, where the name “Clinton” is synonymous with “plague” there was little indication last night that Obama appealed to the party’s more moderate Democrats in any of the other primaries.
And that is why Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas will be so important. If Obama can expand his appeal and win one or more of these states, which have more conservative or lunch bucket Democrats and fewer blacks, or least do very well against Clinton, he might have a shot of winning in November. As has been the case in the last couple of elections, it will almost certainly be necessary for the Democratic nominee to take Ohio or Florida in November and/or get some combination of Pennsylvania, New Mexico, and Colorado, other tossup states in past which Democrats (and Republicans) are sure to target.
Obama is fond of saying that if he is the nominee, he will end up getting Clinton’s votes while she would be less likely to get his. Although Clinton might not get some of the young voters that Obama is currently attracting, she would almost certainly end up with most of the other constituencies voting for Obama. Does anyone really think that blacks, or suburban liberals will either not vote in significant numbers or vote for McCain instead of Clinton, simply because Obama is no longer in the race? While it is pretty clear that Clinton will, in fact, get most of Obama’s voters, what isn’t clear is whether Obama will get the moderate white voters, the kind of voters that will turn the tide in the crucial states mentioned previously, or even the Latino or women’s vote (older women, especially, are voting for Clinton over Obama). If he does not get such voters, but does win the nomination, Obama will be just another sacrificial lamb for the Republican slaughter and all those that voted for him can contemplate this for at least four long years.
Maybe Rube Goldberg wasn’t a Democrat after all.
Last night confirmed that Clinton and Obama will likely be in a tight race for some time. Despite Clinton winning California and New York, Obama’s crack strategy of taking most of the delegates from the caucus states, states with a high percentage of black votes, and gouging into Clinton’s leads in places in blue states by nabbing generally, wealthy suburban liberals is keeping him in this race. For at least the next month or so Obama and Clinton will be trading victories—Obama likely winning Maryland and the District of Columbia, and the caucus states of Nebraska and Louisiana over the next two weeks, and Clinton probably winning Ohio and Texas in early March. It is very possible, then, that the superdelegates will ultimately decide this race, making a mockery of the notion of proportional representation and that every vote counts.
As undemocratic as the scenario may be, Democrats may want the super delegates to save them from themselves. The voting last night was as close as can be as are the current delegate totals, but there are some very troubling signs for Democrats should Obama make it through the primaries and become the party’s nominee. Troubling, because his support was primarily from liberals, blacks and younger whites, constituencies that cannot alone put him over the top in November.
Obama won all of the caucus states yesterday, where only the most motivated and generally liberal of the Democratic party turn out, and states like Georgia and Alabama which have high percentage of black voters. In other conservative states that do not have a high percentage of black voters, such as Arkansas, Arizona, Oklahoma, and Tennessee, Clinton won handily. In Tennessee, for example, Clinton won 71 percent of white voters age 45 and older (44 percent of all voters and well over 50 percent of the same age group in Oklahoma). This is an important distinction because whoever the eventual Democrat nominee is, he or she is going to have to have at least some appeal to these kinds of white voters—more conservative, less educated, and making less money otherwise Obama will do no better than McGovern or Dukakis, other liberal Democrats that won the party’s nomination only to be trounced by the Republican nominees. Except for Utah, where the name “Clinton” is synonymous with “plague” there was little indication last night that Obama appealed to the party’s more moderate Democrats in any of the other primaries.
And that is why Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas will be so important. If Obama can expand his appeal and win one or more of these states, which have more conservative or lunch bucket Democrats and fewer blacks, or least do very well against Clinton, he might have a shot of winning in November. As has been the case in the last couple of elections, it will almost certainly be necessary for the Democratic nominee to take Ohio or Florida in November and/or get some combination of Pennsylvania, New Mexico, and Colorado, other tossup states in past which Democrats (and Republicans) are sure to target.
Obama is fond of saying that if he is the nominee, he will end up getting Clinton’s votes while she would be less likely to get his. Although Clinton might not get some of the young voters that Obama is currently attracting, she would almost certainly end up with most of the other constituencies voting for Obama. Does anyone really think that blacks, or suburban liberals will either not vote in significant numbers or vote for McCain instead of Clinton, simply because Obama is no longer in the race? While it is pretty clear that Clinton will, in fact, get most of Obama’s voters, what isn’t clear is whether Obama will get the moderate white voters, the kind of voters that will turn the tide in the crucial states mentioned previously, or even the Latino or women’s vote (older women, especially, are voting for Clinton over Obama). If he does not get such voters, but does win the nomination, Obama will be just another sacrificial lamb for the Republican slaughter and all those that voted for him can contemplate this for at least four long years.
Maybe Rube Goldberg wasn’t a Democrat after all.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Run-Up to Super Tuesday: Trouble in Paradise
I was in the Los Angeles area recently to visit family and when I landed at Burbank’s Bob Hope Airport, as always, I couldn't help marvel at how exotic the place is, especially in comparison to chilly Maryland where nary a palm tree sways and not a mountain or hill even is to be found ringing the area’s airports. And that ineffable California light! My steps quickened when I emerged from the terminal and into what seems like a movie set (the opening shots of MASH, and many other Hollywood movies were filmed down the road in Malibu Creek State Park) and the chatter of people from Iran, Mexico, the Philippines, the South Pacific. A person can’t be blamed for thinking that this may really be the heart of the American dream.
And a lot of people do believe this. In California—southern California, especially, there isn’t anything that can’t be improved upon, nothing seemingly that can’t be had, nothing that is impossible as you zip down U.S. 101 through Woodland Hills, Calabasas and Malibu, along the highways and byways that take you from mountains to surf in minutes (if traffic permits). Enclaves and redoubts in Santa Monica, Pacific Palisades, the botanical gardens of the Huntington Library in Pasadena, where you'd swear problems can't exist. And if this isn’t good enough, there's the movie industry with its perfect stars and starlets, Disneyland, and the excesses of Forest Lawn Cemetery where even death can be improved upon, or the better-than-real recreation of the Italian villa that is the Getty Museum. There can be no doubt that California is, in fact, for dreamers.
Although it is easy to forget amidst the natural and unnatural splendors, California is also for those who simply want to work to buy a home, educate their children, and purchase affordable health insurance. Like many of the states in the southwest—Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, and Texas—with which it shares much in common California is growing by leaps and bounds. From 1980 to 2006 the state’s population moved from 23.7 million to 36.5 million (U.S. Census Bureau)--people in search of sun, open space, and the promise the west has always held. The proximity to Mexico, well-paying jobs, and established communities of immigrants also exert a big pull. Because of all this California is smack in the mix of the some of the most important issues of the day—immigration, education, health care, and housing. The subprime mortgage mess has hit nowhere harder than California where whole blocks of cities show signs of the crisis—numerous homes for sale, foreclosures, real estate developers and taxpayers left holding the bag on all the unsold tract homes that cropped up overnight when everyone was flush with easy money and there were mortgages aplenty.
Although Clinton had a big lead in California, the race appears to be tightening, with Obama looking like he can pick up a lot of delegates from the State at the very least. There is no doubt that he is an inspirational candidate but the only question California Democrats should be asking is who is most electable in November, and who will be able to best deal with the problems confronting California and this country. Like all those southwestern states California must deal with burgeoning populations, dwindling resources, and cooling economies. Add to this a broken health care system, the war in Iraq and a foreign policy in complete dissaray and it is clear that much is at stake not only for California but the rest of this country when Californians vote tomorrow. It will be interesting to see if in this state of dreamers, Democratic voters will cast their votes for the candidate they believe not only is best able to deal with these problems but most likely to win the Presidency, or whether they will cast their votes based on something less tangible but perhaps more compelling.
And a lot of people do believe this. In California—southern California, especially, there isn’t anything that can’t be improved upon, nothing seemingly that can’t be had, nothing that is impossible as you zip down U.S. 101 through Woodland Hills, Calabasas and Malibu, along the highways and byways that take you from mountains to surf in minutes (if traffic permits). Enclaves and redoubts in Santa Monica, Pacific Palisades, the botanical gardens of the Huntington Library in Pasadena, where you'd swear problems can't exist. And if this isn’t good enough, there's the movie industry with its perfect stars and starlets, Disneyland, and the excesses of Forest Lawn Cemetery where even death can be improved upon, or the better-than-real recreation of the Italian villa that is the Getty Museum. There can be no doubt that California is, in fact, for dreamers.
Although it is easy to forget amidst the natural and unnatural splendors, California is also for those who simply want to work to buy a home, educate their children, and purchase affordable health insurance. Like many of the states in the southwest—Nevada, Arizona, Colorado, and Texas—with which it shares much in common California is growing by leaps and bounds. From 1980 to 2006 the state’s population moved from 23.7 million to 36.5 million (U.S. Census Bureau)--people in search of sun, open space, and the promise the west has always held. The proximity to Mexico, well-paying jobs, and established communities of immigrants also exert a big pull. Because of all this California is smack in the mix of the some of the most important issues of the day—immigration, education, health care, and housing. The subprime mortgage mess has hit nowhere harder than California where whole blocks of cities show signs of the crisis—numerous homes for sale, foreclosures, real estate developers and taxpayers left holding the bag on all the unsold tract homes that cropped up overnight when everyone was flush with easy money and there were mortgages aplenty.
Although Clinton had a big lead in California, the race appears to be tightening, with Obama looking like he can pick up a lot of delegates from the State at the very least. There is no doubt that he is an inspirational candidate but the only question California Democrats should be asking is who is most electable in November, and who will be able to best deal with the problems confronting California and this country. Like all those southwestern states California must deal with burgeoning populations, dwindling resources, and cooling economies. Add to this a broken health care system, the war in Iraq and a foreign policy in complete dissaray and it is clear that much is at stake not only for California but the rest of this country when Californians vote tomorrow. It will be interesting to see if in this state of dreamers, Democratic voters will cast their votes for the candidate they believe not only is best able to deal with these problems but most likely to win the Presidency, or whether they will cast their votes based on something less tangible but perhaps more compelling.
Saturday, February 2, 2008
Follow the Money
Follow the money, isn’t that what they say? Well, you can do this to your heart’s desire at the Center for Responsive Politics (http://www.opensecrets.org). There is information on individual and political action committee (PAC), and other contributions for 2007 for congressional races and the campaign for President. There are many specifics that one can’t track down on the site because of bundling and the bewildering vagaries of campaign finance laws but you can see that the top two Democrats—Clinton and Obama—have many more donors and are making a lot more money than McCain and Romney. Clinton and Obama together earned an incredible $217 million in donor or PAC contributions in 2007 to $89.8 million for McCain and Romney over the this period (does not include the $ that Romney contributed to his own campaign). You can even see what your neighbor or boss has/has not contributed.
The difference among money raised for the remaining Democrats and Republicans is astounding and for January 2008 will be even greater. These figures haven’t been reported formally to the Federal Election Commission yet but Obama’s staff is saying informally that his campaign took in approximately $1 million a day in January of 2008. Clinton has said nothing about her totals for January but she won’t be too far behind that number. As for McCain and Romney? According to the site, Ron Paul earned more money than they did over the last 3 months of the year, and, was, in fact, the top earner of donated dollars (Romney beat him over this period because he poured (at least) $35 million of his own money into his campaign). McCain was on life support for nearly all of 2007, even having to take out a $3 million loan in November, just to keep the “Straight Talk Express” from becoming silenced forever. Things no doubt are changing as we speak and he certainly should have more money once it is clear that he will be the Party’s candidate.
The differences in number of contributers and total dollars that Democrats are receiving over Republicans, coupled with the much larger voter turnouts Democrats are getting should be important indications of how Democrats will fare in November, both in the Presidential and congressional races. I’ll look at such numbers more closely throughout the various campaigns but for now here are some fun, if perhaps meaningless, facts from the site (all dollar amounts are for 2007):
--Ron Paul earned more contributions over the last three months of 2007 than any other Republican candidate.
--Rudy Giuliani earned more contributions over 2007 (approximately $60 million) than any other Republican and received exactly one delegate
--Caroline Kennedy contributed $2300 to Hillary Clinton in June, before contributing the same amount to Obama in September. Is she hedging her bets or does this reflect her switch in allegiance (she now publicly supports Obama)?
--Henry (“Hammerin' Hank”) Aaron contributed $2300 to Hillary Clinton.
--Peyton Manning contributed $2300 to Fred Thompson (don’t let this guy wager your money on tomorrow’s Super Bowl victor).
--Billie Jean King gave Clinton $2300.
--Sidney Poitier and Ellen Pompeo each gave Obama $4600.
--Susan Sarandon spread the wealth around contributing to Obama, Edwards, and Bill Richardson (remember him?), giving Obama the most money—a total of $2000
What may be most interesting is who didn’t contribute in 2007. Where are all those personal donations from cash-heavy celebrities who so conspicuously voice their support for the candidates?
If you take a look at the site and find anything interesting—like George W. Bush contributing $ to Hillary Clinton, or who Dr. Phil is betting on—let me know.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Proud to be an American
I'm proud to be an American--we got two chickens in
every garage
And I wish every other kid could be one--in my country,
the medium is the massage'
Cause it's impossible to give
Equality and justice to inferior foreigners
too jealous to trust us
Gimme your weak and your homeless
How 'bout checkin' the oil ah, fella?
I'm proud to be an American
The Tubes
Jingoistic, flag-swinging self-described patriots are generally morons, so don't get me wrong, I am in no way associating myself with the "boot up your ass," "love it or leave it" swill that dishonor this fine country.
That said...after seeing last night's Democratic debate in LA I felt a lot of pride as both an American and a Democrat when I saw a woman and a black man debating to be the Democratic party's nominee and possibly the next President of the United States. There is a ways to go until we have a President, but history will be made when either Clinton or Obama is elected the party's nominee.
It would speak volumes if this country, especially after its long night of racial inequality, could not only seriously consider a black candidate but entrust to him the what is probably the most powerful position on Earth. It would say nearly as much if Clinton were elected. What is certain, is that this country would have at the helm an executive with a different background and a different perspective to view the American and international landscape.
After years of the Bushes and, before that Ronald Reagan, it is positively delicious to contemplate the possibility of a President who spent some of his youth outside the United States (Indonesia), has navigated black and white cultures (his father was Kenyan) in a way most Americans have not, and is familar with patrician Harvard as well as his father's ancestral village in Kenya. He is someone who obviously loves the United States and what it has to offer but who is aware of how it is often perceived abroad and the reasons for this. Obama's personal experiences are certain to inform his policies in a way that that could be transformative.
And Clinton? For anyone with a mother, wife, daughter or friend with XX chromosomes, it is difficult not to root for her, a candidate who also represents the possibility of a President with a perspective different than any in the office previously. It is nearly as tantalizing to think of what she might do if elected to the White House.
While gender and race are part of the Democratic campaign in 2008 for better or for worse, what makes these candidates more than mere novelties is their talent, past accomplishments, and visions for the future. Both have a mastery of the issues and have laid out clear visions of what they will do and how they will do it whether it be abortion, the Iraq war, or reintroducing our country to the international community. Both have run extraordinary campaigns, thus far, something that gives voters an idea, anyway, of how they will govern.
It isn't completely clear who the most electable candidate is--though I think it is probably Clinton for the reasons I've mentioned before. One thing is clear, though. Democrats can be very proud of the party's last two remaining candidates. They may also rest assured that the eventual nominee would approach the Presidency with rich life experience, insight, and knowledge--a few things that are sorely lacking in the current resident of the White House.
There is little difference between Clinton and Obama on the issues most important to Democrats. We pretty know what we will be getting with either one and it will be good, especially if there are Democratic majorities in both bodies of Congress. Because of their political similarities, this campaign may boil down to whose experiences and perspectives move you most. And this may not be such a bad thing.
every garage
And I wish every other kid could be one--in my country,
the medium is the massage'
Cause it's impossible to give
Equality and justice to inferior foreigners
too jealous to trust us
Gimme your weak and your homeless
How 'bout checkin' the oil ah, fella?
I'm proud to be an American
The Tubes
Jingoistic, flag-swinging self-described patriots are generally morons, so don't get me wrong, I am in no way associating myself with the "boot up your ass," "love it or leave it" swill that dishonor this fine country.
That said...after seeing last night's Democratic debate in LA I felt a lot of pride as both an American and a Democrat when I saw a woman and a black man debating to be the Democratic party's nominee and possibly the next President of the United States. There is a ways to go until we have a President, but history will be made when either Clinton or Obama is elected the party's nominee.
It would speak volumes if this country, especially after its long night of racial inequality, could not only seriously consider a black candidate but entrust to him the what is probably the most powerful position on Earth. It would say nearly as much if Clinton were elected. What is certain, is that this country would have at the helm an executive with a different background and a different perspective to view the American and international landscape.
After years of the Bushes and, before that Ronald Reagan, it is positively delicious to contemplate the possibility of a President who spent some of his youth outside the United States (Indonesia), has navigated black and white cultures (his father was Kenyan) in a way most Americans have not, and is familar with patrician Harvard as well as his father's ancestral village in Kenya. He is someone who obviously loves the United States and what it has to offer but who is aware of how it is often perceived abroad and the reasons for this. Obama's personal experiences are certain to inform his policies in a way that that could be transformative.
And Clinton? For anyone with a mother, wife, daughter or friend with XX chromosomes, it is difficult not to root for her, a candidate who also represents the possibility of a President with a perspective different than any in the office previously. It is nearly as tantalizing to think of what she might do if elected to the White House.
While gender and race are part of the Democratic campaign in 2008 for better or for worse, what makes these candidates more than mere novelties is their talent, past accomplishments, and visions for the future. Both have a mastery of the issues and have laid out clear visions of what they will do and how they will do it whether it be abortion, the Iraq war, or reintroducing our country to the international community. Both have run extraordinary campaigns, thus far, something that gives voters an idea, anyway, of how they will govern.
It isn't completely clear who the most electable candidate is--though I think it is probably Clinton for the reasons I've mentioned before. One thing is clear, though. Democrats can be very proud of the party's last two remaining candidates. They may also rest assured that the eventual nominee would approach the Presidency with rich life experience, insight, and knowledge--a few things that are sorely lacking in the current resident of the White House.
There is little difference between Clinton and Obama on the issues most important to Democrats. We pretty know what we will be getting with either one and it will be good, especially if there are Democratic majorities in both bodies of Congress. Because of their political similarities, this campaign may boil down to whose experiences and perspectives move you most. And this may not be such a bad thing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)