What gets me is that a woman, a mother, and a politician can run for president, on her own merits, garner over seventeen million votes*, come close to earning the nomination of her party, all the while withstanding naturalized sexism and repeated barbs about her appearance, attire, and physical attributes, and only now are we having a "national conversation" about motherhood, sexism, feminism, and politics.
How insulting.
How shallow.
What gets me is that a party which, in recent memory, has done little or nothing to promote or support the cause of women's rights or cast light on women's issues in a meaningful manner, and that historically spent much time vilifying that very same woman, mother, and politician, is now crying "sexism" and acting like champions for the cause of the True American Woman.
How tactless.
How dishonest.
What gets me is that they are getting away with it.
Feminism is not the idea that any woman will do, and feminism is not about a free pass for individuals based on gender**. Feminism is a thoughtful and critical philosophy stating that women are entitled to the same rights and considerations that men receive. Feminism respects women’s choices, but feminism demands that there actually be choices. A feminist will stand up for a woman who has been the object of discrimination, harassment, or violence because of her gender, but it does not mean that women are not to be criticized.
Oh, and feminism does not mean that conservative women are not to be be criticized.
Just as Barack Obama being a black man is not to be considered in a reasoned discussion regarding race in America, Hillary Clinton being a white woman was not to be considered in a reasoned discussion of gender in America. To do so would be "playing the race card" in Senator Obama's case and "whining" in Senator Clinton's case.
Why, then, is Governor Palin not whining when the McCain campaign and its myriad of female spokespeople cry "sexism?" Why is it different now, now that it's not about Hillary Clinton? Why has the clearly political choice of a token woman prompted this "national conversation?"
The right wants it both ways: criticizing Governor Palin is "sexist," criticizing Senator Clinton was "playing hardball." Being a liberal, working mother will bring about the downfall of moral America; being a conservative, working mother is a strong choice. The GOP wants Governor Palin's family off the table, while they trot them out at every opportunity. They tout "family values" including abstinence*** and then praise their candidate for being brave when her family contradicts those values. What if the tables were turned? The right bashes Michelle Obama for being too smart and calls her a "baby mama," so what if Senator Obama's daughters were older, and one of them turned up as an unwed pregnant teen? Imagine that "national conversation." Think the right would not use race and gender as two cards in their game?
Governor Palin is neither a feminist nor a champion for women's rights. Governor Palin is a female politician of the kind that men can handle: she's a guy's gal. She has not earned a position on the national political stage, she was given one because of her gender (and religion), and she would not have been given that place were it not for Hillary Clinton and her high profile and vote-getting campaign for president.
Their praise of Governor Palin is implicit criticism of Senator Clinton. They are still talking about clothes and make up. How is this progress? To them, Senator Clinton was not a true woman, and this becomes clear if you think about the long thread of Hillary Hatred coming from the right. It's truly bizarre at the same time that it is stunningly boring. Conservatives disliking a strong, powerful woman? How fresh! How new and engaging! How not sexist!
The sexism here is that the media and the right were allowed to batter Hillary Clinton remorselesly then turn around and choose an unqualified woman for their second spot. The sexism is that the right thinks that almost any woman will do. The sexism is that many women are falling for it, and many men are feeling self-important for supporting *gasp* a woman in the vice presidential spot. The sexism is that Walter Mondale chose a woman in that same spot in 1984, but Governor Palin is being hailed for breaking the glass ceiling.
Whoever heard of anything being broken by something so passive and flacid? It's like taking a Q-Tip to a mirror and expecting to make a scratch. The Old Boy's Club in the GOP opened the window, pulled her into their smoky back room, and closed it right back up. Nothing breaking there.
Choosing Govenor Palin was cynical and sexist, and it's an insult to the women's movement. The whole conversation is sexist, with the underlying theme that Governor Palin is the anti-Hillary. Even though both women are working mothers who are attractive and wear lipstick, the right wants their women to reflect the proper ideal of feminity, which apparently must include subservience on the one hand and ruthless narcisism on the other. This conversation is setting the women's movement back because, once again, it seems that it is being defined by "traditionalists" and, heaven forbid I use the term, the patriarchy. It is being defined by men who have had little experience with women's issues and the women who love them.
The difference between a pit bull and a hockey mom is that pitbulls are routinely destroyed in animal shelters because they are pitbulls, and hockey moms are a breed the establishment can handle.
And what gets me is that America is falling for it.
*It was difficult for me to quickly find an accurate number. Any search I put in with the term "Hillary Clinton" came up with a lot of right-wing criticism, including Rush Limbaugh. See? The right loves women, simply adores them. Look how much they talk about Senator Clinton!
**The term "gender" is used here in a strictly biological sense. Modern feminism includes many critical discussions of gender as a social construct, and modern feminism must also address trans-gender issues.
***Abstinence as a family value is, of course, ridiculous.
Showing posts with label clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label clinton. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Obama didn’t vote for the war; I can't fly
As I listened to the analysis of the returns from “Super Tuesday,” I heard one Obama voter say “I like him because he did not vote for the war.”
It may sound like nitpicking, but of course he did not “vote for the war.” He was not a United States Senator, and any votes he cast in the privacy of his own home had no bearing on the outcome of the Resolution to Authorize Force, which took place on October 11, 2002. Senator Obama was sworn in on January 5, 2005. I know that in this instance, Senator Obama did not make that statement himself, but it got me thinking.
I was against the resolution, and I did not vote for it either. I don’t know if this will help my in my upcoming bid for Supreme Ruler of the Universe; that remains to be seen. I was not pleased that it passed so easily, and I take issue with the decision that many Democrats made at the time, including Senators Clinton, Kerry, Harkin, Feinstein, and Edwards, when they cast their “Yea” votes.
Only 23 senators voted “Nay,” in fact, and I was happy that both my elected officials, Senators Dayton and Wellstone, were among them.
I don’t know if anyone else remembers, but the legislation was timed in the hopes that it would derail the reelection efforts of senators such as Paul Wellstone, John Kerry, Tom Harkin, and Dick Durbin. It was thought that voting against the resolution would make democratic incumbents seem unpatriotic and soft on terrorism, and they would therefore lose their elections. If they voted for it and went against their perceived principles, it could hurt them as well.
It was a good plan, only a month after the one-year anniversary of September 11th. In the case of Paul Wellstone, I believe he put a lot of thought into the decision and in the end went with his principles, and it paid off. People respected him, even if they did not agree with him, and his polling numbers went up. He most likely would have won his election had he not been killed in a plane crash two weeks later.
It’s easy to say “I did not support this war” and to declare that you would not have voted for it, but it’s another thing to have been in the situation, experiencing the climate of the times and the pressures brought to bear. Ms. Clinton has not done the best job of explaining or justifying her decision, but I argue that there is almost nothing that she can say about it that will not anger many Democrats. She has stated that she regrets her decision and that it was the wrong decision. Mr. Obama has the luxury of not being in the Senate when the resolution came up for a vote, and it's easy to say what one would have done, were one there.
It may sound like nitpicking, but of course he did not “vote for the war.” He was not a United States Senator, and any votes he cast in the privacy of his own home had no bearing on the outcome of the Resolution to Authorize Force, which took place on October 11, 2002. Senator Obama was sworn in on January 5, 2005. I know that in this instance, Senator Obama did not make that statement himself, but it got me thinking.
I was against the resolution, and I did not vote for it either. I don’t know if this will help my in my upcoming bid for Supreme Ruler of the Universe; that remains to be seen. I was not pleased that it passed so easily, and I take issue with the decision that many Democrats made at the time, including Senators Clinton, Kerry, Harkin, Feinstein, and Edwards, when they cast their “Yea” votes.
Only 23 senators voted “Nay,” in fact, and I was happy that both my elected officials, Senators Dayton and Wellstone, were among them.
I don’t know if anyone else remembers, but the legislation was timed in the hopes that it would derail the reelection efforts of senators such as Paul Wellstone, John Kerry, Tom Harkin, and Dick Durbin. It was thought that voting against the resolution would make democratic incumbents seem unpatriotic and soft on terrorism, and they would therefore lose their elections. If they voted for it and went against their perceived principles, it could hurt them as well.
It was a good plan, only a month after the one-year anniversary of September 11th. In the case of Paul Wellstone, I believe he put a lot of thought into the decision and in the end went with his principles, and it paid off. People respected him, even if they did not agree with him, and his polling numbers went up. He most likely would have won his election had he not been killed in a plane crash two weeks later.
It’s easy to say “I did not support this war” and to declare that you would not have voted for it, but it’s another thing to have been in the situation, experiencing the climate of the times and the pressures brought to bear. Ms. Clinton has not done the best job of explaining or justifying her decision, but I argue that there is almost nothing that she can say about it that will not anger many Democrats. She has stated that she regrets her decision and that it was the wrong decision. Mr. Obama has the luxury of not being in the Senate when the resolution came up for a vote, and it's easy to say what one would have done, were one there.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Caucus Night
I walked up through the crowded hallway at 7:42 with my little square of neon red paper in my hand. It listed all the democratic presidential candidates. I had not checked a box, but the ballots were due at 8:00, and it was time. As I came to the table, I chose, and handed it to the woman sitting there.
I don’t feel great about it. I don’t think I would have felt great about it either way.
But what I do feel great about is that 348 people cast presidential preference ballots at my precinct caucus. I don’t know how many the other precincts had, but we packed the Hancock School, and it was excellent. I don’t have any memory of the 2004 caucus, though I went, and I continued as a delegate to the district convention, but I will remember this one.
Our presidential preference results looked like this:
82 Clinton
260 Obama
6 Undecided
The greater results from the state reflect the same thing. People turned out in record amounts, and I think it had a lot to do with Senator Obama, judging by the numbers, though Hillary Clinton received more votes than any Republican candidate by a substantial margin.
In Minnesota, you attend your party’s caucus at separate locations. On the Democratic Farmer-Labor side (DFL, Minnesota’s Democratic Party), you can come and cast a preference ballot and leave, or you can stay and participate in the resolutions and delegate selection section of the night. The great thing is that your preference ballot actually relates to the number of delegates awarded to a candidate, it’s not just a straw poll. I am not sure how many people stayed around, but the hallways were full of people sitting and standing, and numerous people brought resolutions, only one of which was not passed. All the resolutions will be compiled and brought to the District convention on March 8. I signed up to be a delegate, which is another bustling event that I enjoy. That will be more concentrated for our Senate race, where we are trying to win back Paul Wellstone’s seat from Norm Coleman.
We got home at around 9:00, and I turned on Jim Lehrer. Governor Huckabee was the first to speak, and it seems that he wants to abolish the IRS. Popular with people who don’t think things through, no doubt, but... does Governor Huckabee want to get paid if he is president? Next up was Governor Romney, who I privately refer to as “Chompers” because of his remarkable teeth and newscaster aura. He seemed to think he was still going to be in the race. Senator Clinton gave a good speech, from notes, and I thought she was very personable. She was the first to mention that there had been a tragic weather occurrence in Arkansas, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Kentucky, and it surprised me that Governor Huckabee had not brought this up. Senator McCain read from a teleprompter and reiterated how conservative he is, while praising his two opponents. Senator Obama, surrounded by his red and blue Change signs, gave what I guess is his regular speech and did it very well. He also mentioned the disaster in the south (the weather, not Huckabee). I did not hear Ron Paul speak.
The most startling thing that I discovered before I went to bed, aside from states being called with 1% of precincts reporting, which I will always find appalling, was that Governor Romney had won Minnesota. People here are just so... lutefisk. I did not think a flashy Mormon would win, but I guess the caucus system tends to favor the more conservative candidates on the Republican side (sorry, Mr. McCain), and it turns out that Governor Huckabee’s results were close to Senator McCain’s. Neither Mr. McCain nor Mr. Huckabee campaigned in Minnesota; Mr. Romney came here on Saturday, which was dwarfed by Mr. Obama’s rally.
By the time I walked up that hallway, my ballot was curled and rather damp. John Edwards’ name glared out at me, confusing me. I checked the box next to Hillary Clinton, and handed it in. I cannot get over the possible problems with Barack Obama’s healthcare plan.
30 minutes later, I was wishing I had just checked John Edwards.
A few notes:
So far, with 89.18% of precincts reporting, there are 212,287 votes. It is estimated that the final count will be near 250 thousand (DFL only). My brother and sister-in-law went home without voting or even parking because the crowds were so large, and I imagine that plenty of people did the same thing.
The 2004 caucus number was 56 thousand. No wonder I was a delegate. The all-time record was around 80 thousand, during the Viet Nam war.
Our precinct and many others ran out of preference ballots, and people had to write on scraps of paper.
The caucus system was reinstituted in Minnesota in the 1950’s because the party bosses thought that they had lost control over the nominating process to the masses. They thought that a caucus would restrict the number of people participating in the process. They were right, but this year may cause some people to revisit that decision. And in fact, it has. The DFL is considering a change; the GOP is not. I would be in favor of a process that includes a primary vote throughout the day with a 7:00 caucus for resolutions and delegates, for those who want to be personally involved. It is a great way to see and meet neighbors and make your voice heard.
I don’t feel great about it. I don’t think I would have felt great about it either way.
But what I do feel great about is that 348 people cast presidential preference ballots at my precinct caucus. I don’t know how many the other precincts had, but we packed the Hancock School, and it was excellent. I don’t have any memory of the 2004 caucus, though I went, and I continued as a delegate to the district convention, but I will remember this one.
Our presidential preference results looked like this:
82 Clinton
260 Obama
6 Undecided
The greater results from the state reflect the same thing. People turned out in record amounts, and I think it had a lot to do with Senator Obama, judging by the numbers, though Hillary Clinton received more votes than any Republican candidate by a substantial margin.
In Minnesota, you attend your party’s caucus at separate locations. On the Democratic Farmer-Labor side (DFL, Minnesota’s Democratic Party), you can come and cast a preference ballot and leave, or you can stay and participate in the resolutions and delegate selection section of the night. The great thing is that your preference ballot actually relates to the number of delegates awarded to a candidate, it’s not just a straw poll. I am not sure how many people stayed around, but the hallways were full of people sitting and standing, and numerous people brought resolutions, only one of which was not passed. All the resolutions will be compiled and brought to the District convention on March 8. I signed up to be a delegate, which is another bustling event that I enjoy. That will be more concentrated for our Senate race, where we are trying to win back Paul Wellstone’s seat from Norm Coleman.
We got home at around 9:00, and I turned on Jim Lehrer. Governor Huckabee was the first to speak, and it seems that he wants to abolish the IRS. Popular with people who don’t think things through, no doubt, but... does Governor Huckabee want to get paid if he is president? Next up was Governor Romney, who I privately refer to as “Chompers” because of his remarkable teeth and newscaster aura. He seemed to think he was still going to be in the race. Senator Clinton gave a good speech, from notes, and I thought she was very personable. She was the first to mention that there had been a tragic weather occurrence in Arkansas, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Kentucky, and it surprised me that Governor Huckabee had not brought this up. Senator McCain read from a teleprompter and reiterated how conservative he is, while praising his two opponents. Senator Obama, surrounded by his red and blue Change signs, gave what I guess is his regular speech and did it very well. He also mentioned the disaster in the south (the weather, not Huckabee). I did not hear Ron Paul speak.
The most startling thing that I discovered before I went to bed, aside from states being called with 1% of precincts reporting, which I will always find appalling, was that Governor Romney had won Minnesota. People here are just so... lutefisk. I did not think a flashy Mormon would win, but I guess the caucus system tends to favor the more conservative candidates on the Republican side (sorry, Mr. McCain), and it turns out that Governor Huckabee’s results were close to Senator McCain’s. Neither Mr. McCain nor Mr. Huckabee campaigned in Minnesota; Mr. Romney came here on Saturday, which was dwarfed by Mr. Obama’s rally.
By the time I walked up that hallway, my ballot was curled and rather damp. John Edwards’ name glared out at me, confusing me. I checked the box next to Hillary Clinton, and handed it in. I cannot get over the possible problems with Barack Obama’s healthcare plan.
30 minutes later, I was wishing I had just checked John Edwards.
A few notes:
So far, with 89.18% of precincts reporting, there are 212,287 votes. It is estimated that the final count will be near 250 thousand (DFL only). My brother and sister-in-law went home without voting or even parking because the crowds were so large, and I imagine that plenty of people did the same thing.
The 2004 caucus number was 56 thousand. No wonder I was a delegate. The all-time record was around 80 thousand, during the Viet Nam war.
Our precinct and many others ran out of preference ballots, and people had to write on scraps of paper.
The caucus system was reinstituted in Minnesota in the 1950’s because the party bosses thought that they had lost control over the nominating process to the masses. They thought that a caucus would restrict the number of people participating in the process. They were right, but this year may cause some people to revisit that decision. And in fact, it has. The DFL is considering a change; the GOP is not. I would be in favor of a process that includes a primary vote throughout the day with a 7:00 caucus for resolutions and delegates, for those who want to be personally involved. It is a great way to see and meet neighbors and make your voice heard.
Monday, February 4, 2008
Super Undecided
There was a four-person wide line snaking around the venue, across a bridge spanning a four-lane highway, and down a few more city blocks. People were standing in that line for two hours or more on a 27 degree early February day. Were they giving away front loading washers? Free tickets for the Superbowl? Naked ladies?
The crowd was racially diverse and varied in age. They were all waiting for the same thing, outside of the arena that normally houses our losing professional basketball team as well as national musical acts. They were waiting for Senator Barack Obama.
My friend Christine and I went downtown for the purpose of attending what I thought would be a rally. We arrived at the door time, which was 1:30, the line was already blocks long, as I described above, and it was not moving.
I was already in a bad mood about it. My candidate had dropped out of the race, leaving me with no idea of what to do in the caucus. You needed tickets for this event, you could not bring a bag, and you could not bring your own signs.
I was thinking that these were all security and organizational issues, being that both of the democratic candidates are probably in significant danger because of who they are, and what America is, but once I arrived at the venue, I could see that it was definitely not organizational because there was a pungent lack of organization or thought put into the matter.
It was exciting; I understood that from a rational place in my head. It is rare to see 20,000 people moved to attend political event in the nominating portion of a presidential campaign. Normally, I would have been elated. Practically weepy with delight.
I wasn’t.
I was appalled at the fact that this event was so poorly organized as to leave people standing outside for two hours in the cold. Granted, 27 degrees is warm compared to what we have been enduring, but it's not the best conditions for, say, the old or the very young or the disabled. The choice of venue bothered me, too. I guess I am just used to my union hall or campus rallies, and I should get with the 21st century. But something about using a venue like the Target Center and then not using the security and organization that is, I am sure, easily available for such an event is either a gross oversight or was done on purpose to get into the papers.
I think it was the latter. It makes good film to have 20,000 people snaking through the streets of a major metropolitan area to cheer on your candidate.
Christine and I started to walk to the back of the line, but we did not make it over the bridge before we decided that we did not care enough to be out there for hours to hear a stump speech that I could hear on the radio or online later. After all, I was just browsing, not buying, and it’s my weekend.
Granted, I am bitter that candidates like Dennis Kucinich do not stand a chance in America and that John Edwards dropped out just six days before my caucus. I understand that Dennis Kucinich is fringe, like candidates on the right who would not stand a chance with their radical conservatism. I resent that a candidate like John Edwards did not stand a chance because of media and money.
I am also disappointed in both the candidates who are left. I have been tired of their sniping for months. I wanted to hear policy ideas and plans for how they would be achieved, not a rhetorical cage match between two people who are supposed to be on the same side. I know that verbal sparring make for good press, so that is what the media chooses to report, but were there an absence of that, perhaps they would have to report on matters of substance.
Back in 2004 when Senator Obama spoke at the Democratic National Convention, I was impressed with his poise, intelligence, and eloquence. I believed that I was watching our first president of African American descent; I still believe that. I was hoping that he would wait until 2012, but he had electability. I bought his book "The Audacity of Hope," in hardcover, even, and I thought that it was impressive in that it elucidated policy ideas, showed an understanding of American political history, as well as gave the reader some insight int the man writing the book. I got bogged down, however, in the "Faith" chapter, and I did not finish it.
His campaign, however, has devolved into a personality competition with a polished marketing edge, replete with buzz words. It turns out that they did have signs at the event, but they must have handed them out to people inside--they were all the same, emblazoned with the "change" message. All this talk about working together and creating change. Practically no one on the right has ever tried to legitimately work with the left or make concessions to us, and furthermore, I don’t see that change actually comes from conciliation. They seem to me to be anathema. It’s all lip service in any case. This country is partisan and has been since the federalists and democratic republicans were going at each other in the 18th century and early 19th century. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson may have died as warm and friendly correspondents, but they did not begin as such.
I heard afterwards that the was energizing and amazing; like a rock concert. The photos showed the homogeneous signs and a packed house with a tiny Senator Obama on the stage at the end of the arena. I don’t regret our decision to go home instead of waiting in line. I guess that at 37, I am a political dinosaur, and I am incapable of the change that Senator Obama is calling for.
I don't want to caucus tonight for someone I don't feel good about and, honestly, I feel better about Senator Clinton than I do Senator Obama, mainly because of her health care plan, which has been deemed the most comprehensive and workable by many analysts. But this is America, and Ms. Clinton cannot beat Mr. McCain. Mr. Obama may be able to accomplish that feat, though he is polling the same as Ms. Clinton against Mr. McCain at this point. But this country elects a black man before it elects a woman, no matter who the candidates are. Which puts me back in the same place I always seem to be: caucusing or voting for the person I think can win, not the person I wish would.
The crowd was racially diverse and varied in age. They were all waiting for the same thing, outside of the arena that normally houses our losing professional basketball team as well as national musical acts. They were waiting for Senator Barack Obama.
My friend Christine and I went downtown for the purpose of attending what I thought would be a rally. We arrived at the door time, which was 1:30, the line was already blocks long, as I described above, and it was not moving.
I was already in a bad mood about it. My candidate had dropped out of the race, leaving me with no idea of what to do in the caucus. You needed tickets for this event, you could not bring a bag, and you could not bring your own signs.
I was thinking that these were all security and organizational issues, being that both of the democratic candidates are probably in significant danger because of who they are, and what America is, but once I arrived at the venue, I could see that it was definitely not organizational because there was a pungent lack of organization or thought put into the matter.
It was exciting; I understood that from a rational place in my head. It is rare to see 20,000 people moved to attend political event in the nominating portion of a presidential campaign. Normally, I would have been elated. Practically weepy with delight.
I wasn’t.
I was appalled at the fact that this event was so poorly organized as to leave people standing outside for two hours in the cold. Granted, 27 degrees is warm compared to what we have been enduring, but it's not the best conditions for, say, the old or the very young or the disabled. The choice of venue bothered me, too. I guess I am just used to my union hall or campus rallies, and I should get with the 21st century. But something about using a venue like the Target Center and then not using the security and organization that is, I am sure, easily available for such an event is either a gross oversight or was done on purpose to get into the papers.
I think it was the latter. It makes good film to have 20,000 people snaking through the streets of a major metropolitan area to cheer on your candidate.
Christine and I started to walk to the back of the line, but we did not make it over the bridge before we decided that we did not care enough to be out there for hours to hear a stump speech that I could hear on the radio or online later. After all, I was just browsing, not buying, and it’s my weekend.
Granted, I am bitter that candidates like Dennis Kucinich do not stand a chance in America and that John Edwards dropped out just six days before my caucus. I understand that Dennis Kucinich is fringe, like candidates on the right who would not stand a chance with their radical conservatism. I resent that a candidate like John Edwards did not stand a chance because of media and money.
I am also disappointed in both the candidates who are left. I have been tired of their sniping for months. I wanted to hear policy ideas and plans for how they would be achieved, not a rhetorical cage match between two people who are supposed to be on the same side. I know that verbal sparring make for good press, so that is what the media chooses to report, but were there an absence of that, perhaps they would have to report on matters of substance.
Back in 2004 when Senator Obama spoke at the Democratic National Convention, I was impressed with his poise, intelligence, and eloquence. I believed that I was watching our first president of African American descent; I still believe that. I was hoping that he would wait until 2012, but he had electability. I bought his book "The Audacity of Hope," in hardcover, even, and I thought that it was impressive in that it elucidated policy ideas, showed an understanding of American political history, as well as gave the reader some insight int the man writing the book. I got bogged down, however, in the "Faith" chapter, and I did not finish it.
His campaign, however, has devolved into a personality competition with a polished marketing edge, replete with buzz words. It turns out that they did have signs at the event, but they must have handed them out to people inside--they were all the same, emblazoned with the "change" message. All this talk about working together and creating change. Practically no one on the right has ever tried to legitimately work with the left or make concessions to us, and furthermore, I don’t see that change actually comes from conciliation. They seem to me to be anathema. It’s all lip service in any case. This country is partisan and has been since the federalists and democratic republicans were going at each other in the 18th century and early 19th century. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson may have died as warm and friendly correspondents, but they did not begin as such.
I heard afterwards that the was energizing and amazing; like a rock concert. The photos showed the homogeneous signs and a packed house with a tiny Senator Obama on the stage at the end of the arena. I don’t regret our decision to go home instead of waiting in line. I guess that at 37, I am a political dinosaur, and I am incapable of the change that Senator Obama is calling for.
I don't want to caucus tonight for someone I don't feel good about and, honestly, I feel better about Senator Clinton than I do Senator Obama, mainly because of her health care plan, which has been deemed the most comprehensive and workable by many analysts. But this is America, and Ms. Clinton cannot beat Mr. McCain. Mr. Obama may be able to accomplish that feat, though he is polling the same as Ms. Clinton against Mr. McCain at this point. But this country elects a black man before it elects a woman, no matter who the candidates are. Which puts me back in the same place I always seem to be: caucusing or voting for the person I think can win, not the person I wish would.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)