Yesterday two friends sent me detailed defenses of Hillary Clinton, one from Robin Morgan, the other from Stanley Fish. You can find either editorial by googling their name. I do believe an agenda is being served with the attacks on Hillary Clinton and that many of these attacks are orchestrated by the Republican Party and the media. Shoot down the stronger candidate now--or at least the one that appeared to be the stronger candidate.
It is easier to get away with attacking a woman than a black man. Racism trumps sexism as an issue as it did in the sixties. We can talk about ironing shirts but not about shining shoes. It is sickening that there are still people who would define either of these candidates in this way.
The important thing to remember is that the Democrats have come up with two highly credible candidates that are both from minority groups. Can you imagine the Republicans even choosing a VP from either group much less a President? And instead of reveling in how far we have come, we have been manipulated into choosing one and denigrating the other. I'm not talking about a vote in a primary but a public show of preference, name-calling and sickening jokes.
Hillary or Obama, take your pick. I will happily vote for either-- candidates who care about universal health care, an end to the insanity it Iraq, a serious commitment to improving the environment, insuring children don't go to bed hungry, a fair tax system, better schools. The list goes on.
It is so important to stand behind whoever the nominee is because we are in danger of doing what seemed impossible a few months ago--losing the White House to another supporter of the war, someone else who says America first, last and always and the rest of the world be damned. Sure McCain looks good next to George Bush but they are not very different at all. They didn't look very different eight years ago and time has not changed that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Hear, hear.
I disagree about who the Republicans (I are one) would prefer to face in November. There are many, many people who will never vote for Hillary just because she's Hillary. Obama has broader appeal.
I'm pretty happy with the four remaining major candidates. I don't care for many of Hillary's policies but I think she would be a responsible President who would vigorously press America's interests in the world.
See here I am offending a nice Republican guy, assuming that everyone is a Democrat when that's not the case. I'm as bad as the people I'm criticizing and I apologize.
I do admit McCain is certainly better than the rest of the field. But I could never support anyone intent on continuing the war. I believe the war in Iraq has about destroyed this country and staying there forever will only make it worse forever.
I have to admit that I was a little more faith in Hillary following her debate performance in Hollywood. She did seem much more presidential, leading me to agree with Graham about her ability to be responsible. If she were to get the nomination, I could probably be convinced to vote for her (her lack of support for Wal-Mart workers notwithstanding). Still - so much can happen between now and November.
For now, I stand by Michael Chabon's excellent op-ed.
I guess since I live in a state that squandered its chances to allow me to cast a meaningful vote, I will continue to say that both candidates are good ones. I do admit the inspirational aspect of Obama's candidacy might be a vote-grabber.
..and somewhere in all this the big shocker will be that Cheney will step down, [right about the time the Repub. candidate is running 20 points behind], and Condi Rice will be the new V.P. This will of course "prove" that the current G.O.P. is forward thinking, ready for change and all inclusive. Bleah.
FWIW--I consider myself a conservative in that I believe in smaller, less intrusive govt., fiscal responsibility and strong oversight and accountability on how, where and why we put the lives of our people in uniform at risk. I also believe that as a country that touts itself as the most prosperous and compassionate nation in the world that universal health care should be a right not a privilage.
Ok, thats my semi-coherant somewhat off topic ramble for the morning, I need more coffee.
John McAuley
Several weeks ago, I was for Hillary. However, I have changed my mind. I am now for Obama and it has nothing to do with race or gender. I was 18 years old when John Kennedy ran against Nixon and although I couldn't vote (you had to be 21 to vote in 1960, I saw Kennedy as a transformative leader - and my instincts were right. How much better this country would be today had John and Bobby had lived. Nothing against Hillary and if she is the nominee, I will fully support her. I guess I am looking for Camelot again. I was at the Michigan Union steps when Kennedy first proposed the Peace Corps. It was a glorious time when we young people thought that America could do anything. That is why I now support Obama.
Wow, the scenario with CR is scary, John.
Chuck-Inspiration might be the only way to beat McCain. It's been a long time since anyone inspired us. But either is good for me.
Personally I think that all candidates should nominate Dick Cheney for VP. Just to cut down on the risk of assassination.
And I wasn't offended at anything you wrote. I probably should have said, "I usually vote Republican" which would have been more accurate.
Tanks, Graham. That's been worrying me all morning. Once upon a time, and this is going to date me, I was a Goldwater Girl. But then Vietnam happened.
Well, Vietnam was already a Fun Place to Be in '64, but, then again, Barry the G wised up in time. Meanwhile, I don't care so much about what Clinton is saying now as to what she has pretty consistently done, and what her husband has done, in their intertwined careers. And I'll repeat the good Chomsky line I posted here a while back...as democrats, we should be looking for representatives, not "leaders." Of course, representatives are a bit thin on the ground. McCain might be a bit crazed, but he seems to (mostly) stick by his principles...which by me are often wrong, even though they are also often less wrong than those of his fellow Republicans. Romney seems so patently absurdly opportunist that Giuliani started to look principled in comparison. Obama appeals, I think, largely to those who feel they are intellectual, and those who feel that they are not seem to tend to be suspicious of him...hence, ironically, Clinton's supposed greater appeal to what some are calling "Wal-Mart Democrats." Chuck, it's remarkable to me that while we might well agree on policy initiatives, I find myself disagreeing with nearly every reason you put forth for your judgements in the discussions here...I think JFK was an irresponsible president in most ways, a good speaker, and entirely too much a model for Bill Clinton except from a privileged background and therefore with less of a pathetic need to kiss up to the wealthy (as opposed to Nixon's apparent resentment and distrust of the wealthy). Though the continuing growth of RFK was good to see, even if he seemed content to sit on the sidelines till it looked like McCarthy might take the nomination. There was an attempt to draft Martin Luther King for a leftist party run, with Benjamin Spock as veep candidate, in 1968, but you know what happened there...now that would be a ticket I could've gotten excited about, even if it wouldn't've done much better (or even as well?) as Wallace and LeMay did (and even Wallace got shot). Spock did eventually make a modest run in '72 as the People's Party candidate.
Meanwhile, New Jersey hasn't yet sent me acknowledgement that I can vote yet, nor is it actually clear that I can write in Gravel, but I'll be visiting the polls tonight...
Todd, Gravel will always be embedded in my consciousness after your fervent support of him. Kennedy did inspire. We may have seen him through a youthful haze, but an inspiring haze it was. You had to be there...So few politicians look good in retrospect.
And for good reason!
Consider the "Cuban Missile Crisis" alone--it scared the world, contributed centrally to the murcer of Kennedy and the purge of Kruschev (who was the least bad of Soviet premiers by some distance), and could've been a quiet swap of not putting missiles in Cuba for taking them out of Turkey, which is what eventually happened under all that machismic bluster.
Fwiw, I don't support Gravel so much as his agenda...which is much more forthright than Obama's or Clinton's. A better messenger probably would've helped.
I do enjoy those earnest (almost always) men who assure us that even though, yes, women have been oppressed in this country, truly the Real Narrative of US History/Oppression has been of race, by which they tend to mean chattel slavery rather than the indentured servitude abuses of Asians nor the attempted and often successful genocide of native nations. bell hooks's dictum that there is no hierarchy of oppression is no fun...it's harder for Earnest to feel that he is not part of the problem if part of the problem is who is consciously or unconsciously expected to clean the house. (To get back to your original post, Patti.)
And in case anyone's not read/heard...Huckabee won in West Virginia, after McCain folks strategically shifted to MH to foil Romney's potential win.
Now that's funny.
I vividly remember living through the Cuban missile crisis. I remember hundreds of us students crowded around a 19 inch black and white TV in the meal hall of West Quad at Michigan watching as American war ships were stopping Russian supply ships headed for Cuba. Very, very scary. The world was holding its breath. Kruschev blinked and everyone breathed a tremendous sigh of relief and Kennedy was a hero. He was also a hero when he personally brokered an end to the U.S. steel strike. He was a very inspirational leader. As Patti says, you had to be there to truely understand what was oing on.
After Kennedy, we had nothing but old pols running the country.
Clinton could have been a great President if only he had kept his pecker in his pants. That in large part cost Gore the election in 2000.
By the way, all of you who voted for Bush in 2000 owe me an apology.
Those of you who voted for Bush a second time in 2004 need to seek mental health care and to stop voting.
I only hope our children can look through the haze and see one President in their life to be proud of. If not our children, at least our grandchildren. Interesting piece in Newsweek (usually only worth a minute or two due to their relentless coverage of health issues) about how female and African-American presidents on TV and in the movies have prepared us for the Democratic ticket.
No, Chuck, I understand pretty well what was going on with the Cuban Missile Crisis. How you felt about the Cuban Missile Crisis, that Kennedy was a "hero" for making it a dangerous bit of brinksmanship theater rather than the sensible negotiation it actually was behind the scenes was very bad judgment indeed. And Kennedy, as you also didn't know then, had the same problem you ascribe to Clinton, only apparently to a ridiculous extent...not that that indicates much other than another sort of poor judgment.
And, as you might rememeber, Gore won the election in 2000, Sandra Day O'Connor cast the vote that put Bush in office, and Gore did nothing to rid us of the ridiculous electoral college.
I know a writer who was wondering if THE WEST WING and Jimmy Smits's character might've helped lay the groundwork. I'd counter-suggest that the runs, however short and whatever you thought of them, of Shirley Chisolm, G. Ferraro for Veep, Jesse Jackson, Patricia Schroeder, Carol Mosley Braun and...(!) Al Sharpton and Alan Keyes (!) have actually done a bit more to get us used to the notion of women and African-Americans running reasonably seriously for the office, leaving aside the other office-holders of these descriptions.
Patti, I'd certainly like to have a present to be proud of without having to be selectively blind about them...
Sorry, as posted my note suggests Chuck has poor judgment in hero-worhiping Kennedy, rather than what I meant, that JFK showed really poor judgment in making an international incident ouf of what became a simple swap of missile bases.
Post a Comment