Seven months ago, the last time my 92-year-old grandmother had dinner at my house before she died, I organized all of the women in my family for a photo of “Four generations of women for Hillary Clinton.” In the photo we included the baby tee shirt that my now 15-year-old had worn when “we” volunteered for Bill Clinton’s first presidential run and our prized autographed photo of my infant daughter being held by President Clinton. Hillary was to be our first woman president, and my now adolescent daughters and I agreed with their cousins and aunts and grandmothers and great-grandmother that it was finally time.
Over the last few weeks in Pennsylvania my ambivalence about who I would vote for in the primary has been met by uniform surprise, “but you…. I thought you…aren’t you.” Yes, I am an upper middle class educated professional woman registered Democrat. My first political memory is going door to door for George McGovern with my mother. I have proudly self-identified as a feminist since age 12, and I have never wavered in my support for both Clintons. But, despite her intelligence and her eloquence, Hillary isn’t the candidate I wanted her to be, and if she can’t convince me, how can she possibly win a general election.
I don’t actually fault Hillary, because as all successful feminists of her generation who struggled to break the glass ceiling—and isn’t this the ultimate glass ceiling—she has absolutely mastered the rules of a man’s world. Unfortunately, the game is changing, and the old rules are no longer good enough. I wanted the first woman president to be better than the men who preceded her and not simply to be better at their politics. I wanted Hillary to rise above the fray, to inspire and to unite, and to humanize, and to finally be the one to change both how we campaigned and how we governed. While I owe Hillary a great debt for paving the way for the next generation of women politicians, I believe that our first woman president will not come from her generation. The price she and her peers had to pay for playing by the rules, as they existed, was too high. The first generation feminists didn’t realize that woman shouldn’t simply strive to succeed at the old rules, but they needed to change the rules themselves.
Barack Obama’s speech on race in Philadelphia was probably my turning point. Although young and relatively inexperienced, Senator Obama is behaving like the elder statesman that I wanted Hillary to be. He strives to unite, to inspire and shockingly for a politician, he tells the complicated truth about issues like race, that other politicians avoid. I am immensely grateful to the Clintons for their years of service for the causes I believe in, and I hope that Senator Clinton and former President Clinton continue to use their stage to change the world. I wish the Clintons well and like many of their friends and allies I hope they don’t think I am betraying them, but I am voting for Barack Obama in the Pennsylvania primary.
— Goldy’s Sister
Question for everyone: Is the Democrat you are voting for for altruistic reasons also the person you think is best suited to beat McCain? Like Goldy’s sister, I like Obama, however, Hillary’s famous “He can’t win” line keeps ringing in the back of my head. Is she right? Even if he beats her, will he not be able to pull it off in November? Does Hillary, my second choice, actually have a better chance at beating McCain? That’s really all I care about. At this point in the game, I want to back the person who has the better chance at winning it all.
I caucused for Obama exactly because I felt he had the best chance of winning in November, and because I strongly believe he will do better for down-ticket races than Clinton, particularly out here in the Western states.
I would have been happy with almost any of the Democratic candidates gaining the nomination.
Senator Obama is behaving like the elder statesman that I wanted Hillary to be…
Hear, hear!
Last night I read some of the ugly ramblings at “the other blog”, it was “leftist this”, “marxist that” and the old McCarthyist, guilt by association (Rev. Wright, Rezko and Bill Ayers).
The right is doing what they do best – promulgating fear, uncertainty, doubt. It’s not enough to be inspired by Barack Obama. We have the unenviable task of calming those who were too easily manipulated by the fearmongering of the last 30 years.
Glad to see the HA glass ceiling broken with a woman writing a post.
I am so disappointed by HillaryCo. Since she cannot win by her merits, she will destroy her opponent.
Goldy’s sister, a self-described upper middle class educated professional, says her turning point was during an Obama speech on race in Philly. I wonder how many working class Pennsylvanians had their own turning point in the other direction after Obama’s “bitter” speech?
http://www.chicagotribune.com/.....893.column
I question Obama’s choice of friends…
@6
Obama’s “bitter” speech was straight out of the book What’s The Matter With Kansas? When WTMWK? came out folks like Maureen Dowd, who are trying to turn the “bitter” speech into a big deal praised the book. But Obama’s out of line and out of touch for using the data in it?
Did Stephanopolis get any of these questions from Hannity for his weekend with the Maverick?
Hey John……
1. Do you agree with Pastor John Hagee that war with Iran is the fulfillment of biblical prophecy?
In February, you shared a stage with Pastor John Hagee and said you were “very proud” to have his endorsement. You also called the Reverend Rod Parsley, a man who said of Islam “America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed”, your “spiritual guide.” Do you believe America’s mission is to destroy Islam? Do you join Pastor Hagee in believing the United States must attack Iran to fulfill the biblical prophecy of Armageddon in Israel in which 144,000 Jews will be converted to Christianity and the rest killed? Is that why you joked about “bomb bomb Iran?” If not, why will you not renounce the support of Hagee and Parsley?
2. Doesn’t your legendary temper make you too dangerous to be trusted with the presidency of the United States?Your anger, even toward friends and allies, is legendary. You purportedly dropped the F-Bomb on your own GOP colleagues John Cornyn and Chuck Grassley. In the book, The Real McCain, author Cliff Schechter claims you got into a fist-fight with your fellow Arizona Republican Rick Renzi. Allegedly, you even publicly used a crude term, one which decorum and the FCC prohibit us from even saying on the air, to describe your own wife. Which if any of these episodes is untrue? Don’t your anger management problems make you too dangerously unstable to be president of the United States?
3. Doesn’t your confusion regarding basic facts about the war in Iraq, including repeatedly citing a nonexistent Al Qaeda-Iran alliance, make you unfit for command?
On four occasions in one month, you confused friend and foe in Iraq by describing Sunni Al Qaeda as being backed by Shiite Iran. Then you showed a misunderstanding of the U.S. chain of command when you claimed you would not back shifting forces from Iraq to Afghanistan “unless Gen. [David] Petraeus said that he felt that the situation called for that,” a decision which Petraeus himself told you and your Senate colleagues only the week before rests not with him but with his superiors. Doesn’t your lack of understanding and judgment when it comes to basic facts of America’s national security disqualify you as commander-in-chief?
4. Given your past adultery, should Americans consider you a moral exemplar of family values?
You are the nominee of a Republican Party which claims to support so-called “family values.” Yet you commenced an adulterous relationship with your current wife Cindy months before the dissolution of your previous marriage to your first wife Carol. Should Americans consider you to be a moral exemplar of family values?
5. Doesn’t your flip-flop on Jerry Falwell being an “agent of intolerance” show your opportunistic pandering to the religious right?
In 2000, you famously called the late Jerry Falwell “an agent of intolerance,” a statement which may have cost you the decisive South Carolina primary. But as you ramped up your next presidential run in 2006, you embraced Falwell and gave the commencement address at his Liberty University. When Tim Russert asked that spring if you still considered him an agent of intolerance, you said, “‘no, I don’t.” Why shouldn’t the American people consider you a flip-flopping opportunist who cynically courted the religious right to further your 2008 presidential ambitions?
6. Given your wealth and privileged upbringing, aren’t you – and not Barack Obama – the elitist?
You have called Barack Obama an elitist. Yet you recently returned to your exclusive private high school, one which now costs over $38,000 a year to attend. Your wife is the heiress to a beer distribution company, reputedly owns 8 homes and has a net worth well over $100 million. Your children all attended private schools, academies which also happened to be the primary beneficiaries of funds from your supposed charitable foundation. Shouldn’t the American people in fact view you as the elitist, and a hypocritical one at that?
7. What is your religion, really? And has the answer in the past changed as the South Carolina primary approached?
I want to ask about your seemingly ever-changing religious beliefs. In June 2007, McClatchy reported, “McCain still calls himself an Episcopalian.” In August 2007, as ABC reported, your campaign staff identified you as “Episcopalian” in a questionnaire prepared for ABC News’ August 5 debate. But as the primary in evangelical-rich South Carolina neared, in September 2007 you said of your religious faith, “It plays a role in my life. By the way, I’m not Episcopalian. I’m Baptist.” But in March 2008, Pastor Dan Yeary of your North Phoenix Baptist Church refused to comment on why you have refused to finally undergo a baptism ceremony. Congressional directories still list you as an Episcopalian. In the past, you’ve said, “When I’m asked about it, I’ll be glad to discuss it.” So what is your religion? And couldn’t Americans be forgiven for assuming your changing faith is tied to your changing political needs?
8. Didn’t President Bush betray you with his signing statement on the Detainee Treatment Act? You claim to be against torture, but aren’t you a hypocrite for voting “no” on the Senate waterboaring ban?
You’ve said that “we can’t torture or treat inhumanely suspected terrorists we have captured”. And in December 2005, you famously reached a compromise with President Bush on the Detainee Torture Act banning cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of detainees. But just two weeks later, President Bush issued a signing statement making it clear he would ignore the compromise you just reached. Then in February 2007, you voted “no” on a Senate bill banning waterboarding. Isn’t it fair to say President Bush betrayed you with his December 30, 2005 signing statement? And isn’t it fair to say you caved to the right-wing of your party on the issue in order to win the Republican nomination?
9. Why did you flip-flop on the Bush tax cuts you twice opposed? Why do you now support making them permanent for the wealthiest Americans who need them least?
You twice voted against the Bush tax cuts. Now you support making them permanent. In 2001, you said, “I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief.” Now, according to the Center for American Progress, your tax plan would cost more than $2 trillion over the next decade and “would predominantly benefit the most fortunate taxpayers, offering two new massive tax cuts for corporations and delivering 58 percent of its benefits to the top 1 percent of taxpayers.” Isn’t it true that you flip-flopped on the Bush tax cuts? Isn’t it fair to say that you now favor a massive expansion of the federal budget deficit in order to fund a tax giveaway to the wealthiest Americans who need it least?
10. With the economy tanking, shouldn’t Americans be concerned over your past statements that “the issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should?”
Americans consistently report that the economy is the issue that concerns them most. Yet more than once, you proclaimed your ignorance when it comes to the economy. In November 2005, you told the Wall Street Journal, “I’m going to be honest: I know a lot less about economics than I do about military and foreign policy issues. I still need to be educated.” Then in December 2007, you admitted, “The issue of economics is not something I’ve understood as well as I should.” Shouldn’t the American be worried about President McCain’s ability to lead the United States out of recession? Given your past statements, shouldn’t the American reject out of hand your claim that “I know the economy better than Senator Clinton and Senator Obama do?”
All of these are fantastic questions, now let me add two from The Real McCain:
11) How can you call yourself a straight-talker in light of the fact that you have changed your positions or rhetorically flip-flopped on the following issues: Abortion, Creationism in science class, immigration, intervention abroad, tax cuts for the wealthy, civil unions, a Martin Luther King holiday, the Confederate Flag, the Christian Right, Bob Jones University, whether Rumsfeld did a good job, whether Dick Cheney is doing a good job, whether President Bush is an honest man, a Patient’s Bill of Rights, global warming, campaign finance reform in general, public financing of campaigns specifically, lobbying reform, whether the War in Iraq would be “easy,” whether Sunni and Shiite are working together, whether “Iraqi blood should be traded for American blood,” military readiness, how many troops are necessary for the suge to succeed in Iraq, ehtanol subsidies, the continuing existence of a minimum wage, closing the gun-show loophole, healthcare for children…and I could go on, but how about we start with those?
12) Finally, if Barack Obama must account for everyone he has ever passed within a 100 square mile radius of, then here are some associations you might want to explain, with the indicted, the white supremacists and the downright corrupt: Rick Renzi (indicted), Terry Nelson (racist ads against Harold Ford in 2006), Trent Lott (pining for a Strom presidency), The Wyly Brothers (corrupt), Bob Perry (Chief Swift Boater), Richard Quinn (white supremacist), Rev. Richard Land (homosexual hate), Ken Blackwell (Ohio election suppression), Charlie Black (lobbyist and according to John Gorenfeld’s new book, Bad Moon Rising, Reverend Moon lover). That would be a start.
I don’t write this to pile on Mr. Stephanopoulos. I have usually found you to be a fair-minded host. Yet, if you are to right the wrongs of that debate, please give equal time, and make John McCain answer for aspects of his political career which are much more relevant than a flag lapel pin to whether he or Barack Obama would make a better president.
Cliff Schecter
Goldy’s sister
1. (and to all) a sussen pesach!
2. err ahh . you got a name please? Your brother is a wonderful person and I will bet you his sister has her own name!
3. This essay is one of the most insightfulk pieces I have read this campaign season. My thanks.
————————
If I can add a few thoughts…
I doubt society needs more macho leaders. Is a Bushella better than a Bush? It takes a big pair of balls pasted on a women executive to create the success a Colonel North may have. While I am sure we will have some women with Drill Seargent ementaiolities, I suspect we will do a lot better than that by adding women at the top.
In my own field a huge percentage of the up and coming leaders are women and esp. women who have obviously “feminine” styles that were rare before.
Hillary is in many ways the worst of all possibilities. As the ESSO (Swedish term meaning significant other) of a power couple her carear was that of the supportive partner .. as a rainmaker for the Rose law firm or the fall guy for the health care mess or the patient spouseof a cocksucker. She did magnificently in that role .. create new ground that will make Michelle’s opportunities much greater.
I suspect that we will very soon see a far more impressive woman running at this level. There are several women in both parties who would make great VPs for the the two men .. Whitman or Condy on the right and Nepalitano or Pelosi on the left. Sketch any of these four against the image now paonted by ms,. Clintona nd she suffers.
O-blah-blah has the most Liberal Voting Record of all 100 US Senators—-STRIKE 1!!!
O-blah-blah showed his true colors towards rural American’s with his bitter, gun-totin’, church-goin’ arrogant, elitist rap—-STRIKE 2!!!
O-blah-blah has no specific plans or foreign relations experience other than supporting klowns with Terrorist Ties—STRIKE 3!!
Oh and for good measure, O-blah-blah supports major tax increases—STRIKE 4!!
All you self-absorbed, self-proclaimed “Progressives can yap among yourselves that none of this matters…
we’ll see.
Great leaders are game changers. They don’t simply play better under the existing rules; they don’t merely move the goalposts; they redefine the game itself. FDR was such a leader. So is Governor Gregoire. McCain? A big fat zero. But that doesn’t mean we can afford to run a zero + 1 against him. What the country needs right now is a Lincoln, a Jefferson, or a TR. Can’t say for sure if our party has one, but it’s damn sure the GOP doesn’t.
11 – Yes folks here it is: fear-mongering and more dishonest talking points from the right.
Barack Obama is a hundred times the leader that disaster of chimp could ever hope to be.
We combat these lies with compare and contrast – the failures of the right and more of the same with a vision of hope and true progress.
And sorry Cynical – you voted for that Chimp and all the debt he’s piled on this country. You’re going to pay your fair share of it back. My kids aren’t going to shoulder the consequences of your poor judgement.
@3 “Last night I read some of the ugly ramblings at ‘the other blog’, it was ‘leftist this’, ‘marxist that’ and the old McCarthyist, guilt by association (Rev. Wright, Rezko and Bill Ayers).”
Yeah, and last night Bill Cuchon was shrieking about how “ugly” the tone is on this blog … in case those idiots haven’t figured it out yet, what I do is imitate them, so they can see what they look like.
YLB–
How much did you pay in taxes for 2007?
Are you going to get the rebate?
Are you going to send it back???
What is your net worth now as compared to 2001 when Bush took office?
Fair Questions..
O-blah-blah has opened his pie-hole and inserted his foot numerous times. Enough to sabotage his campaign.
O-blah-blah may go down in history as the candidate who snatched defeat out of the jaws of certain victory.
You see YLB–
O-blah-blah is leaving a trail…like a slug…a long SLIMEY trail of comments & actions that when you add them up, the average person gets a picture of how the man REALLY thinks.
Add that to his claim as the MOST LIBERAL US SENATOR and a voting record that will be analyzed….he has serious problems.
Do you really think average Americans thought HIGHLY of his “bitter” comments made to the ELITE of San Francisco??
He lost middle-America support dude.
Tomorrow’s Pennsylvania Primary will tell you the depth of his erosion.
He is going to lose by more than 5 points.
How many Black Friends do you have YLB??
NONE!??
You are probably one of those typical LEFTIST KLOWNS who are afraid to have Black Friends…but you ease your guilt by supporting someone because of his color.
@6 “upper middle class educated professional”
Is something wrong with that? I mean, I know Republicans have strived mightily to glorify ignorance, but at the end of the day a dumb hick is still nothing more than a dumb hick.
@7 I question your choice of friends.
14. Roger Rabbit spews:
“Yeah, and last night Bill Cuchon was shrieking about how “ugly” the tone is on this blog … in case those idiots haven’t figured it out yet, what I do is imitate them, so they can see what they look like.”
Rog, c’mon. Your not serious are you? You spew all that profanity…to prove some point??
Seems a little hard to believe that is your motive…although I enjoy the banter with you!
Frankly Rog, there are about 6 LEFTISTS and 4 folks who are always RIGHT who do most of the posting here.
Is it reaaaaaaallllly worth your effort to try & “convert” or “educate” 4 people??
Otherwise, you are preaching to the Choir Rog.
Let’s take this Blog for what it is…a cesspool for folks to spew their thoughts & ideas. Nothing more.
Although Goldy does a good job of creating topics and presenting his viewpoint. So do will and Darryl.
But something that is having revolutionary impact?? What in the heck is Mrs. Rabbit spikin’ yer carrot juice with???
Nice post by sister Goldy. It’s interesting to see the worms it forced out of the muck.. like those prod’s stuck in the ground to gather nightcrawlers.
There is a legitimate argument to be made of a chronic clinical psychosis at work with the righties that habitually inhabit this blog. I mean, do they really think they would ever, in a trillion dollars, err whoops, years, convince any Dem that McCain is our choice?
One correction for SJ: “the patient spouse of a cocksucker”
It should read: “the patient spouse of a cock suckee”
Hey, we forgot to complain about nepotism. Old-school Philly Nepotism!
I’m just giving you shit. Welcome to the club, it’s a great post.
@5
Yeah, that’s pretty much it. I’m surprised by the number of people willing to help her do it.
15 – None of that is any of your business Cynical.
Only question I’ve ever asked you is which state you live in now and I’ve never pressed it. I’ve only teased you about your apparent preference for for the 7 states without an income tax or smaller or no inheritance tax.
Keep on spinnin’ your wheels on that one.
You serve up a lot of hyperbole about Obama – it’s all fear-mongering and whipping up hysteria.
You say you don’t like Bush yet you probably voted for him twice.
McCain is campaigning for more of the same and you shouldn’t like him yet I’m certain you’ll vote for him.
Why am I certain? It’s your track record.
YLB–
Of course I’ll vote for McCain.
How sleuthing of you to figure that one out.
O-blah-blah has the MOST LIBERAL Voting Record of all 100 US Senators. No way I’d vote for him. Plus he has recently shown his true colors. No thanks-
Who doesn’t dispise State Income Tax YLB?
Frankly, I don’t care what you pay (or don’t pay). Just seems like you are quick to want to tax successful people even more….even though 1% of the folks aleady pay 55% of the taxes.
Not sure what you do for a living, put I have worked over the years with many successful people who invest in may areas, spend to keep the economy moving, pay incredible tax bills simply because they are successful (hard work and risk taking).
You seem like the type of chap who needs a steady paycheck YLB.
If you were self-employed, you would know how tough it is to handle all the taxes (self-employment over 15%, B&O Tax of 1-1/2%…the list goes on & on).
I don’t think the Dems will win if they run Hillary against McCain.
@6
I wonder how many working class Pennsylvanians had their own turning point in the other direction after Obama’s “bitter” speech?
As someone who grew up in a working class part of PA, I can tell you that the number is very close to 0.
even though 1% of the folks aleady pay 55% of the taxes.
Maybe so, but they’ve gotten almost ALL of the benefit of right wing governance over the last 30 or so years.
The middle class, the working class has gone NOWHERE.
The debt has doubled under Bush after squandering a surplus. The top one percent enabled Bush if not outright told him what to do. Yes, the same guy you say you don’t like yet voted for twice and now you say you want to vote for more of the same?
Why am I not surprised?
It’s time these “economic royalists” (FDR’s term) were made to account for the disaster of the last 7, no 30 years.
The middle class is tapped out.
@13 Roger
What the country needs right now is a Lincoln, a Jefferson, or a TR.
What an inappropriate and wierd set of choices.
Lincoln … but for grant might be ranked with Bush. The Man did all he could to maintain the uoon OVER issues like free speech, slavery, etc.
It is impossible to imagine Jefferson and Lincoln even on the same side of the civil war.
Teddy??? Errr ahhh, what fascinates you about him. Picturesque ina Reagan-like fashion but it is hard to point to a material achievement.
Jefferson, FDR, they may make a more compelling image .. along with, perhaps, Johnson. Each of these guys, in one way or another, led the nation to fundamental new directions and out of a morass.
YLB–
My wife & I have lots of “middle-class” friends & relatives.
I was raised lower middle-class.
My dad was a mechanic.
My mom stayed at home to raise 3 kids.
Will lived from paycheck-to-paycheck.
Each of us kids worked our way thru college…our parents simply could not afford to help as my dad had health problems.
I saw the struggle & sacrific.
They did not believe in Credit Cards or Home Equity Loans.
YLB, when you look deep into the plight of many middle-class Americans, you see borrowing & spending CHOICES made….live for today, worry about paying for it later.
Kind of an entitlement mentality that did not exist 50 years ago. Things have changed.
I agree, our Federal, State & Local Governments have been poor examples of spending on the come. Don’t try & get cute about our State Government YLB…..delayed infrastructure maintenance & unfunded pension liability’s is no different than increasing the National Debt. And the Dems have controlled Olympia for 28 years.
It comes back to personal choices & responsibilities. People are different than 50 years ago….especially in dealing with personal finances. In many ways, that’s a bad thing. VICTIMS?? Some, but not all YLB.
It cracks me up that Cynical is bringing up Obama’s voting record yet totally ignores McCain’s “maverick” record – committing the unforgivable sins of McCain-Feingold and opposing the Bush tax cuts, even toying with pulling a Jeffords and jettisoning the Bushites or even being Kerry’s VP!
Now that McCain is mouthing the things right wingers like to hear – everything is just fine.
No need to worry about McCain flip-flopping once he’s in office. It’s obvious to anyone with an ounce of brains that this tired, ill-tempered old man has been bought and paid for.
Jew @ 27:
You left out the only president in this nation’s history who publicly and repeatedly warned that the unchecked concentration of wealth in private hands was a threat to the nation’s security.
Moreover, he didn’t write checks with his mouth that his ass couldn’t cash. He went to war against Wall Street and beat it to a bloody pulp.
When the right-wingers of his day thought they could defy a federal order, he stood them down with military force.
And while he was at it, he paid off the national debt, the only president in our history to have done so.
He led the nation to fundamental new directions and out of a morass every bit as much as Jefferson and FDR did, and without a foreign war, like LBJ had.
Hint: He wasn’t a Republican.
I am so stunned that a post was allowed on HA written by a woman that I cannot find the words to respond to it, hmmmm, she must be Goldy’s big sister.
@13 Roger
As for Gregoire .. ythe best anyone can say for her is that she is a good administrator. BUT a leader or problem solver?? If she has that potential it has so far been well hidden.
ivan–
Is it President Eliot Spitzer??
HAR-HAR!
I can’t imagine a better reason for voting for Obama than that he has the most liberal voting record in the Senate (though I think that claim is misleading). The Senate is out of touch with the American public, and way too conservative despite its Democratic majority. Conservatism is out of steam, out of ideas, out of principles. It is high time that liberals again proudly proclaim our liberalism and push the nation’s government to the left.
@13 Dissing McCain
Finally, I find it more than a bit dumb when we diss McCain because he is a rep. There have been great reps. Dan Evans, perhaps this state’s one great governor, was and is a rep. Your buddy TR was a rep. Alexander Hamilton .. thought the term did not exist then .. would today be seen as a rep.
McCain strikes me a as a commited patriot and hinest man. We deserve the chance, to hear McCain’s ideas on many subjects because he actually believes in what he says.
Hillary can no longer run a campaign on the issues. Once she dipped her toes into the Rovian bath water, it became impossible to know what, if anything, she stands for. Is she really for a forced withdrawal form Iraq??? Since her Healthcare plan, as written, can not be afforeded, what doe she back. Sure she would move away form the nut right fringes, but would she go as far as Lani Guanier for the SC? No one knows because the real Hillary is now hidden under hige piles of dirty laundry.
Back to McCain vs. …
I will bet that if he runs vs. Obama we will have a wonderful chance to compare the ideas and styles of two true patriots. If, as I believe, the time has come for a real move to the left. Obama will win.
If Hillary somehow wins, she has set a course now that can not be reversed. Issues will not be discussedgerous oversimplification of issue. Any victory will be Pyrrhic.
@30 Ivan .. and who was this?
28 – You want to blame the middle-class’s plight on the middle class ignoring the fact that their wages have barely kept pace with inflation since the seventies. Some go into debt for self indulgence, yes, but many go into debt to start a small business after being laid off, pay medical bills, help a kid through college, etc.
Under Booth Gardner’s leadership, this state could have had an income tax – joining 43 other states. We could have had lower sales taxes and property taxes and maybe a reformed business tax. We could have had an end to the chaos that seems to reign each bi-ennium and we could have had adequate funding for schools and infrastructure.
In other words, we could have had a fairer tax system with a much lower burden on lower/middle-income people and small business.
Yeah, I accuse the Dems of cowardice. Maybe the pressure from outfits like Boeing was too much but this cowardice only enabled assholes like Eyman.
The day of reckoning is approaching. If we don’t have significant tax reform within the next 5 years, this state will sink to backwater status. Which by the way, is just fine for rich people. A few at the top profit and enjoy the good life in their gated communities with golf courses, all the rest at the bottom scrape for the crumbs.
O-blah-blah Now Claims To Be a FrenchMan….and proves it by waving the White Flag today!!!!!!!!! This just in:
SCRANTON, Pa. – Barack Obama predicted Monday that Democratic presidential rival Hillary Rodham Clinton would get the critical victory she needs in Tuesday’s Pennsylvania primary, but said his goal is to keep it close.
“I’m not predicting a win,” he told Pittsburgh radio station KDKA. “I’m predicting it’s going to be close and that we are going to do a lot better than people expect.”
This is precisely the mentality many people are afraid of. Get ready for a battle and S-U-R-R-E-N-D-E-R before the fight!
Goldy’s sister might as well stay home!!!
Jew @ 36:
Andrew Jackson. And quit sucking Dan Evans’ dick, will you? He was very average. Chris Gregoire is the best governor we have had, by far, in the almost 42 years I have lived in this state.
YLB–
Hey, it’s not so bleak little man.
Get your dobber outta the dirt.
Stand up and be an example of hard-work and sacrifice.
The fact is inflation is so great in the Puget Sound area for many reasons.
A lot of it is related to the cost of housing.
Remember the UW Study which said Regulations & Permit delays cost $200,000/house.
The day of reckoning should be cutting about 30% of the State Employees and their Diamond Benefit Package.
The Dems have create a situation where soon there will only be Government Jobs.
Good employers paying living wages will leave.
For some, a State Income Tax will mean bye-bye.
For others, they will merely move to some other more tax-friendly State.
Careful what you wish for.
39. ivan spews:
” Chris Gregoire is the best governor we have had, by far, in the almost 42 years I have lived in this state.”
Ask the folks who rely on the State Ferry System, and those stuck in traffic and those who cannot afford a house and those who are invested in a private business.
The handout crowd loves her ivan….you got that right.
@25
Yay, Lee!
@39 Andrew Jackson
Hmm .. I need to think about that. He certainly was a transformational president. He represents the fall of elitism in the US .. never to rise again!
I think crediting Jackson with dealing with corporations in the modern sense is silly. He lived to early to do that.
As for Dan Evans, whatcha got under your saddle there pardner? Few governors anywhere are great in the sense of presidents as they lack the resources. Dan Evans has ahd a lasting impact for the good on many aspects of this state.
As for CG, I have no desire toi diss the guv, I just fail to see any evidence of leadership or innovation. Who is she?? What is she doing?? What does she care about???
Every time some supporter of hers tell me that CG is great, I ask the same questions. At best I am told she is good at backroom negotiations. I believe that.
If you have more to put on the table, I am open.
Gregoi
@18 “Rog, c’mon. Your not serious are you? You spew all that profanity…to prove some point??”
Bingo!
@18 (continued) When your side stops, I’ll stop. And not ’til then. Their move.
@41 “Ask the folks who rely on the State Ferry System, and those stuck in traffic and those who cannot afford a house and those who are invested in a private business.”
Yes, ask them! The reason the ferry system is falling apart is because the Republicans who controlled the state senate from 1994 – 2004 refused to invest in this state’s needs. Now Rossi thinks he can get elected playing the same game. Betcha it won’t fly in November, wait and see.
“I hope they don’t think I am betraying them”.
You are betraying them, and profoundly.
You are endorsing “I’m Barack Obama, running for President and I approve this message. … Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected.”
You are endorsing the candidate who claims the middle class lost ground during the Clinton years.
You are endorsing the candidate who successfully framed the Clintons on accusations of race-baiting, through an elaborately orchestrated race-baiting campaign of his own.
You are endorsing the candidate who later claimed in passive voice that racial tensions just “bubbled up” between the New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries … and who preposterously asserted that America can’t make any progress on jobs, health or education without his admittedly incremental contribution to America’s admittedly residual racial divide … who frames his campaign in grossly counterfeit histories of the civil rights movement of the 60’s, the Reagan years of the 80’s and the Clinton/Gingrich years of the 90’s … who inspired you with a speech that claims a Clinton presidency would leave us in racial “stalemate” analogous to the slave state versus free state stalemate at the Constitutional Convention.
You are endorsing the candidate who gave Hillary the finger last week in Raleigh NC.
You are endorsing the candidate who says Hillary represents the status quo, and whose surrogates constantly drum the message that both Clintons entire lives in public service have been motivated solely by self-interest.
You are endorsing the candidate who claims Hillary has been bought by special interests … “bought” for a fraction of a percent of her campaign budget (an amount smaller than lobbyist contributions to his own presidential exploratory committees and FEC-exempt expenditures). That’s the same candidate who with no track record in major-league politics claims he can end politics as we know it simply by restricting a few hundredths of one percent of federal lobbyist budgets.
You are endorsing the candidate whose chief adviser on entitlements tried to resuscitate Bush’s Social Security privatization initiative in 2005 after the netroots and unions joined forces to beat it to death … whose chief health care adviser believes the push for universal coverage is misplaced (along with virtually all mainstream progressive health care concerns) … whose Chicago/DLC/noeliberal chief adviser on trade says “there is nobody more in favor of open markets than me”, and believes our 900-page trade agreements should be reduced to a libertarian two pages each.
You are endorsing the candidate who promises you a whole new world, but avoids describing it or disclosing how he will deliver it — whose entire appeal rests on the premise that special interests and partisan opponents will evaporate when he takes the oath of office.
You are endorsing the candidate whose appeal depends largely on his endorsement of traditional talk radio tropes of the Arkansas Project.
You are endorsing the candidate of make-believe — who looks at governance the way a 12-year-old looks at Playboy — over the candidate who has seen the world as it is, and is prepared to govern there.
If that’s not betrayal enough, we could get into the misogynist double standards, but I think you get my drift. All this betrayals are MINOR compared to the betrayals of hope and trust and progressive possibilities that an Obama presidency would bring … dashed hopes that would immunize two generations against Hope itself, doing for the Democratic/Progressive alliance just as much as Herbert Hoover did for Republicans and Conservatives.
Here’s another betrayal. You’re probably old enough to remember when women beat down the Equal Rights Amendment. If this uncommonly qualified, uncommonly equipped woman at an uncommonly opportune time is beaten down by your double standards, we will not live to see any woman taken seriously for POTUS … and prospects are dim for our daughters and nieces and granddaughters.
But you like the goosebumps and the lines engineered to trigger sentimental tears? So do I, even as I recognize the cheap tricks that cheap tricksters use to evoke them. Fine. Go your way, and I’ll go mine.
Just do me one favor. I’ve done my time, sweeping up after LBJ’s war, and Nixon’s perfidies, and the idealists who brought down Carter and gave us twelve years of Reagan/Bush, and idealists who brought down Clinton and gave us six years of Gingrich/Delay and eight years of Bush.
I will stop Obama before the convention if I can, and after the convention if I have to. If that means supporting McCain, so be it. If that means backing an independent candidate in a key state and throwing the election into the House of Representatives, so be it.
If you do get your Unity Pony — along with the pro-lifers, the Naderites, the Friedmanites, the Lieberman Democrats, the Bloombergers, the theocrats, the Federalist Society and everybody else who thinks Obama is their free ride — just don’t expect me to sweep up after it. I’ll do what good I can in other pursuits, including deep reflection on the defects of media-age democracy that re-elected Bush, and that enabled a major faction of a major party to fall for Obama.
@46 – In 2005, our democrat controlled legislature approved and set aside $285 million for 4 new boats, we are now learning over the past year, that money was spent elsewhere. The plan in 2005 was to have the 1st ferry built and running by 2008. We still don’t even have plans yet.
Here’s a gen x view who was involved in the legislature:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....ies17.html
Cynical @41:
*I* rely on the ferry system, you piece of shit, and I blame Tim Eyman and the assholes (that would be you, wouldn’t it) who voted for I-695 for its present state.
RonK @ 47:
Vote for McCain, will you? How about you go have a circle jerk with Cynical?
Congratulations to your sister for seeing the light. Obama generally attracts the better educated and I can see she’s no exception.
@47
You are endorsing the candidate whose chief adviser on entitlements tried to resuscitate Bush’s Social Security privatization initiative in 2005 after the netroots and unions joined forces to beat it to death … whose chief health care adviser believes the push for universal coverage is misplaced (along with virtually all mainstream progressive health care concerns) … whose Chicago/DLC/noeliberal chief adviser on trade says “there is nobody more in favor of open markets than me”, and believes our 900-page trade agreements should be reduced to a libertarian two pages each.
Ron, all of this is a drop in the bucket to Hillary’s war vote and her failure to truly understand the complexities of foreign policy. That’s the real problem here. She still believes that Democrats have to act like Republicans in order to succeed in foreign policy. She’s wrong. A majority of Democrats knows she wrong. And thankfully for Obama, a growing number of independents and even Republicans know she’s wrong too, and that’s why Obama is will be a force in November. Not even the Ron Paul Republicans (the only segment of that party right now with any grassroots presence) will be voting for McCain if he’s going up against Obama.
RonK–
Excellent points about O-blah-blah….they say little, enthralled with power Chicago-style Political Goon.
O-blah-blah is a horrible candidate when challenged on his record & beliefs…horrible.
And he would make an even worse President.
ivan–
The “progressive” movement has repeatedly failed in many European Countries because the freeloaders flock in and muck up the pipedreams. We need a system that encourages investment of Capital & creating PRIVATE INDUSTRY jobs. O-blah-blah can only see a bigger & bigger role for government.
If Dems like RonK see all the flaws in this fairy-tale candidate….just think of how many others will reject him.
Let’s see how Pennsylvania goes after O-blah-blah’s premature surrender today.
@52
The “progressive” movement has repeatedly failed in many European Countries because the freeloaders flock in and muck up the pipedreams.
As someone who has lived in Scandinavia, forgive me as I take about 4 days to laugh at this.
Cynical, do you visit some kind of stupidity gym where you bulk up your idiot muscles on a daily basis? Or do they sell supplement powders at GNC that you can just mix with ammonia and drink?
We’re all curious, how do you stay so goddamn dumb at such a consistent level?
By linking rural Pennsylvanians to bitterness, guns and religion? Or by hanging out with people who view America as Black America and KKK America?
Inability to understand the meaning of the word “unite” obviously runs in the Goldy family.
By linking rural Pennsylvanians to bitterness, guns and religion?
You’ve clearly never been to rural Pennsylvania if you think this is a big deal.
@23:
“…1% of the folks aleady pay 55% of the taxes.”
Utter bullshit.
The bottom third of this country pays around 27%. The middle third pays around 45%. The top third pays around 27%. Bill Clinton’s attempt to raise taxes during his first term forced that upper third to kick up their share to either 30% or 33%, depending on which of two studies of the tax increase you consider more of an accurate assessment.
What’s sad about this is how little it would take, how little it took, to balance our Federal budget and get our government out of debt, and how angry it made people like Mr. Cynical to pay their fair share.
But Mr. Cynical hates his country, so….
RonK @47,
Honestly Ron, I don’t understand the anger. I caucused for Obama, but I’ll happily and enthusiastically support Clinton if she wins the nomination. Overall, I don’t see one being particularly more progressive than other, I think their both incredibly smart, competent people, and I’m comfortable with either one in the job. But I do think Obama has more upside, and that Clinton makes it tougher for down ticket candidates in many parts of the nation.
But the anger? I don’t get it, and I don’t think it’s been an extraordinarily nasty campaign from either side.
Lee @ 53: (Re: Cynical) “We’re all curious, how do you stay so goddamn dumb at such a consistent level?”
I, too, have been curious about that phenomenon. While Cynical is slightly more capable of stringing together a couple of coherent sentences than most of the resident trolls, he is incapable of ever saying anything of any intellectual substance. And, remarkably, he does it all with an arrogant sneer that reveals the elitism that stains all of his posts.
Now, I won’t vote for Obama at all. I don’t think he has the experience or anything more than a ton of ego. Its going to be interesting because many women of my age (65) are really turned off by him and are looking at the Republicans.
Goldy @ 57 — What anger?
@60
What anger
This anger:
If you do get your Unity Pony — along with the pro-lifers, the Naderites, the Friedmanites, the Lieberman Democrats, the Bloombergers, the theocrats, the Federalist Society and everybody else who thinks Obama is their free ride — just don’t expect me to sweep up after it. I’ll do what good I can in other pursuits, including deep reflection on the defects of media-age democracy that re-elected Bush, and that enabled a major faction of a major party to fall for Obama.
Or did some other “RonK, Seattle” write that comment?
@59
Thank you, concern troll. I’m 32, and I’ve only met one person my age who will vote for McCain over Obama. But a clear majority of the people I know my age will vote for McCain over Hillary. I’m not one of them, but the Democrats have a very big problem if Hillary is the nominee.
@59
Messages like this are a large part of the reason that so many on the Obama side are turning away form HRC and will not vote for her. Almost every Obmite I know was once a Hillary advocate. She last us.
It is this simple, If she ran on her qualifications and plans, the entire Obama contingent would have supported her. What she has achieved by seeking the refuge of Karl Rove, is making many of worry that she IS another Bush, a container for people’s hopes and fear but lacking any substance of her own.
If Hillary is so competent and experienced why has she run thi8s sort of campaign? I am a very well read voter but I still have no idea how she would play for her health plan, where she stands on school reform, or what strategic plans she has now that she is willing to go along with exit Iraq crew.
To be fair, I know less about some of these issues than I would like to about Barack as well. But, at least as far as I can see, she has created, along with Hannity, a poisonous atmosphere were rela issues can nto be discussed.
So, before you finally commit to McCaine, please look a t policies. Look at the stands of Obama’s female supporters and ask yourself if it is HE that has caused Hillary to lose.
Lynn,
Your opinion comes up fairly often. Could you explain to me the logistics behind a Democrat’s decision to vote for McCain if Clinton doesn’t get the nod? Basically, you’re saying that Clinton is closer in philosophy to McCain than Obama. Earth to Lynne. Maybe you’re not a progressive, or a Democrat. After the last eight years of disaster you’d vote Republican?
The only possible basis for supporting Hillary in the primaries then voting for McCain in the general is sour grapes. It is the voting equivalent of getting peeved in a childhood game and taking one’s ball and going home. I cannot stand how Hillary has conducted her campaign and have lost a great deal of respect for her. But, vote for McCain if she were the Ds’ nominee? Not a chance in hell. The country is too important for such childish games.
The Dangerous Veep
I am less worried about Lynn and other disappointed feminists than I am about their cvoting for a female Reprican as Veep.
I have said on this blog for months that McCain would choose a female Veep … either Whitman of Rice. The main argument from Goldy and others has been that McCain can’t have a Veep from the pro-abortion school.
I think Hillary has shown that HER vote has more to do with gender or classical white racism than with here actual stands on traditional democratic issues. Lynn and other older women support Clinton because they identify with her travail. There is pride in ones genetalia just as there is pride in skin color, ethnic origin, and religion.
Moreover polls of women, ALL women ..always show they are far more rpo choice than men, even when the women are conservative. What Whitman or Rice would need is a well rehearsed “I hear your Pain Refrain.” Tlak about ways to prevent the need for choice, encouragement of adoption, etc. would go a long way as long as it was accompanied by a good story about being saved again.
In contrast, it seems to me that BHO can not choose a woman. He is already a but metro and a white woman esp could make issues. I am also not sure there is a woman as notable as Condi or Whitman. I do not think any women with Hilalry’s macho mystique is on the demo side.
ivan @ 49 — I said “supporting”, didn’t I? That can include much more than just voting.
I assume you will continue to promote progressive interests, according to your best understanding of the options available to you. You can assume I will do the same, for the reasons I explained clearly above.
lee @ 51 & 61 — typical delusional drivel
Seattle Jew @ 62 — ditto
RonK, you should remove the tinfoil hat before you watch videos. It interferes with visual perception.
This is drivel for many reasons. Both Obama and Clinton are status quo candidates, and extremely ambitious politicians. You don’t get to this level without wanting it very badly. For the record, I think Hillary has been a force for good in the Democratic party and our country.
So, Ron, you’re a Republican, eh? Clearly, like many others on both sides of this debate, you’ve lost all perspective. John McCain would be a profoundly bad choice under any circumstance, but most especially during a time when we are fighting wars on two fronts. He loves war, (he sings about Bombing Iran) doesn’t understand economics, and would be the oldest person every elected President. You call yourself a Democrat?
The only race-baiting I’ve seen in this campaign has come from the truly disgusting caricature of Rev. Wright and his church. I can only assume you haven’t bothered to watch the two sermons which were cannibalized to make the YouTube video. Obama’s church is truly a bedrock of the community, welcoming all and discriminating against none. Hillary took the opportunity to pile on, and I don’t begrudge her that, she wants to win, at any cost.
I would only point out that in the last debate, when Obama was pointedly offered the opportunity to comment on her blatant lies about Bosnia, he offered the comment that she was allowed to make mistakes. Clearly, he is an evil genius.
‘The “progressive” movement has repeatedly failed in many European Countries because the freeloaders flock in and muck up the pipedreams.’
Who? Oh, you mean all those desperate American bankers looking for a handout?
Crosspost notice — I have crossposted an excerpt of this post along with my comment @ 47 as a main post at The Confluence.
@69
No one cares, Ron.
What would happen if a whole bunch of prominent liberal bloggers became convinced Bush was right about the existential threat posed by an Arab dictator’s weapons of mass destruction, and foreclosed any discussion of the possibility he didn’t have WMDs as simply beyond the pale?
That couldn’t happen, did it?
Obamania requires an equivalent suspension of critical judgment, and after that … anything goes.
mrmobi @ 67 – you can be willfully ignorant if you want but he did flip her off, that is rather obvious. After the NH primaries several BHO alcolyte’s came forward and claimed there was some sort of “Bradley Effect” against Obama-that wasn’t race baiting? I for one am getting tired of being called a racist for supporting HRC.
Goldy, Too bad about you lack of good judgment. Hopefully your aunts and cousins realized they had made the right choice for an experienced, principled, insightful candidate w/ policies in hand ready to take the job on Day 1.
Senator Obama is a snooty elistist fraud like the others. He hides behind his mantra of change when he is as worse as the rest.
And then sycophants like Will Bunch suck up
to him.
Will plans to be onhand for the election day shoe shine at 0600am.
ABB — Anyone But Obama
71: “Obamania requires an equivalent suspension of critical judgment, and after that … anything goes.”
Do you have any idea how offensive that statement is? I would never say the same thing about those who support Hillary. I will say that the smartest, most savvy, most skeptical people I know support Obama. RonK, sorry, but you’re not in that category.
WBB @ 74
I want someone better than me, smarter than me, more perceptive than me to be president of the United States. If that means we get a president who people like you, a person who is unacquainted with basic rules of English grammar and punctuation, consider “elitist,” then so be it.
Goldy?
proud leftist @ 75 — Are you saying that such mass manias cannot occur, even though they have? Or simply that those swept up in them take greaat offense at having them pointed out? If the latter is the case, we do not disagree.
Are you saying that my comment @ 71 is more offensive than your comment @ 64? How so?
Very nice piece, Goldy’s sister. I too have found myself supporting Obama over Clinton reluctantly at first. I could so see what Clinton has had to endure as a woman in a man’s world and understand much of what she has become as a result.
Combine that with the lack of recognition of what an entire generation of women have done. It has been quite eye-opening to see how people have dissed Clinton.
However, I finally had to realize it was just time to get over it. I believe Obama is the best choice for this time. I also reluctantly recognize that Clinton is digging a pretty big hole for herself and possibly for all the Democrats with her behavior, and her husband’s behavior and the behavior of her staff in the last two months.
I Like Hillary for the Playoffs This Year—Not Waiting or Trading for a Future Woman Draft Choice
Dear Goldy’s Sister,
As a man supporting Hillary Clinton it pains me to see a female supporter jump ship believing that Hillary isn’t the “woman” candidate they want her to be and running over to the Obama “Magical Mystery Tour,” (sorry/snark).
While parts of your post kindly gave Hillary her due, I have heard your “I like Hillary, but” arguement from a few other women I thought should know better and it makes me crazy.
There could be a reason or two she “seems” not to be the woman candidate you want her to be.
I posit that there has not been a public figure who has had more money spent
against her than Hillary Clinton–evah!
But she’s still standing, fighting, winning more than half the vote in big and swing states and still
beating McCain in many places Democrats need in November.
This little contest is making Obama a better candidate than he was going to be. And as you respectfully acknowledge, Hillary has
already made history, I want her to keep making history until the last vote is counted and she’s sworn in.
I like her because she is smart, tough and compassionate.
She will be a truly great president because she “is” so smart and tough.
Being president isn’t bean bag or debates or even listening too long to Mark Penn.
(Go Geoff Garin.)
For my support I don’t ask Hillary to live up to some ephemeral ideal that I have for the
first woman president. Might just be a little sexism in your point of view there.
I just want to get a women elected to the job and believe that Hillary is a remarkably talented, once in a life-time, woman candidate for the job. I don’t want to wait.
But ask yourself why on some days you don’t think she is the candidate you want her to be—not a rule changer as you say?
Could it be due to any of the following:
**Scaife millions spent against Hillary and Bill in first term–see David Brock’s book.
**16 years of Right-Wing Noise Machine money spent against Clintons–see Brock.
**Months of Harry and Louise Insurance Industry funded ads spent against Hillary’s health care
proposal (was it as much as $100 million?–I know spending broke a record for defeating
legislation–yah, I know she made mistakes with her proposal, but no one was going to prevail
against that kind of spending by the bad guys).
**Ken Star and Repub Congressional Committees taxpayer money spent against Clintons (another $100+ million).
**Faux News money spent by Roger Ailes against Clintons–the friggin’ channel was created to
defeat the Clintons and Democrats in Congress (100s of millions over a decade).
**MSNBC/NBC 24/7 misogyny millions spent against Clintons since mid-1990s on orders from GE CEO Jack Walsh.
**And now the so-called “politics of hope” Obama campaign millions spent on negative ads
against Hillary–4 to 1 TV distortion ads against her in Pennsylvania.
Yah, there just might be some days you don’t feel like voting for her after that.
But ask yourself why has such a large amount of money been spent against Hillary and Bill
since 1992?
Could it be that the wing-nuts recognized that Hillary would be a transformational leader and they set out to scruff her up early and often?
They knew that an activist First Lady and perhaps first woman president would change
American history forever. Hillary and Bill were the generation who cut their political teeth during the civil rights movement and during the Vietnam anti-war movement. They were dedicated to changing American forever with a national health care plan and to pursue economic justice–1993 tax changes start helping the middle class.
Such changes had threatening ramifications for crony capitalism for decades
to come. The Clintons were going to fund education and work for a clean environment. They were going to put the death to the reps of Reagan and Bush 1.
But after 2 years of wing nut Wurlitzer spending millions against them they ran into a speed bump called Newt. But look at what they accomplished in spite of Newt’s armies.
That’s why the right-wing cabal hated the Clintons like they never hated before. The threat the Clintons posed to business as usual was clear. Not since FDR and Teddy Roosevelt before him were there going to be such “blows against the empire.” Remember, Newt lost to the Clintons, that’s why they rolled out Ken Star.
So I gotta tell you, this romantic notion that you want the first women president to be better
than the men is just that, a romantic notion. Ce n’est pas la réalité fondée.
And when you write:
and
What are you smokin’? Have you been paying attention to what the trad-media and the Obama campaign have been doing to Hillary?
Hillary’s been up to her ass in aligators and you still want her to drain the friggin’ swamp. Romantic, but not helpful.
Rules don’t change because we wish they would change. They are changed by fighting. Battle is required. The victor gets to set the policy.
As a man married to someone you refer to as “a first generation feminist” (actually Hillary and my wife are 2nd generation feminists–don’t forget Susan B. Anthony, and her peeps–they’re gen 1) I have seen up-close and personal sexism under the present rules. And those rules are never going to change until a woman sits in the power seat. Without having a woman commander-in-chief things aren’t really going to change.
Did Sen. Mulkuski, Patty Murray, Barbara Boxer and the other D women senators change the rules before they got elected? Of course not. They fought like hell in a corrupt system, survived sexism, got elected and then started to make a difference. Cart before the horse not good.
Until the rules of the male dominated, oligopoly, power structure change in the good ole USA the first woman president will only reach that office by mastering the system. That’s reality, IMHO, and we are supposed to be the reality based side of the blogoshere. I hope we don’t forget that.
Obama is playing the same “living by the sword” game. He may make speeches about the politics of hope, but his campaign is living by the “no rules in a knife fight” law of the jungle.
He’s not the candidate you want him to be either. The trad-media just don’t do a very
good job of reporting on that to you. And now way too much of the left blogosphere has
been bathing in the kool-aide so it’s hard to even find out about Obama’s scurrilous campaign tactics.
Yet when Obama’s caught by the trad-media on something he simply denies it, like a Jedi mind
trick–“these aren’t the droids (gaffes, policy flip-flops, ad distortions, denials, honest, I just pushed the wrong voting button) your
looking for.”
I recommend to you the following post by eriposte at The Left Coaster from last Friday.
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/012366.php
It lays out in detail Obama’s early, consistent, Republican-talking points attack on Hillary since 2007. Not exactly the work of a rule changer either.
No there isn’t any “new politics of hope” from the Obama campaign–never has been—only speeches and hardball Chicago style, Axelrod style politics of attack. Obama’s even arrogant and mean (“You’re likable enough, Hillary,” –BO in debate). Seen the Obama “way too cool” flip the finger at Hillary video? (http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2.....#more-2239).
You know what? It ain’t cool to diss a woman that way or anyone.
I don’t like things Obama has done, but I can’t fault him for fighting hard too. But let’s not confuse his less than stellar “throw the kitchen sink” at Hillary moments not covered by the trad-media for a pure as the driven snow kind of campaign. It just ain’t so.
Obama has used every Republican talking point to give the “Hillary Haters” in the trad-media
an excuse to repeat them.
And let’s not forget that Obama’s got a little veracity problem.
**”I didn’t support a total hand gun ban.” Well, yes you did–in your own hand writing.
**”I didn’t know my pastor of 20 years hated America.” Well, yes you did. You joined that
church to get street cred.
**”We never played the race card.” Well, yes you did. (even Hillary Hater, Tim Russert has Obama Campaign memo)
**”I don’t really know Bill Ayers (bomb throwing terrorist).” Well, yes you did (you served for years on the same board)
**”I support universal health care.” Well, no you don’t. You support cherry-picked health care.
**”I don’t really know Rezko.” Well, yes you do. He gave you beau coup bucks for 10+ years and helped you buy your house.
I have been involved in political campaigns since I worked for McGovern and in that time
I have worked with many first time women candidates who faced sexism from their opponents and the press corps. But I have never seen the sexism and misogyny that exists in this campaign against Hillary. Not even Faux News can compare to the journalistic crimes committed by the other broadcast and
cable news nets, especially the Irish Mafia at MSNBC/NBC, the official Obama channel.
Obama has been shockingly aided by a fawning, trad-media who only recently started to admit
that they have been drinking (bathing in) the kool-aide while they hand feed sprinkle donuts to McSame.
I can agree with you that Hillary has not been the candidate I wanted her to be either. She has made mistakes. I was hoping she would have this thing wrapped up. But that doesn’t matter. After what the trad-media has done to the political process (witness the smearing of Gore and Kerry before her) she’s doin’ great, as far as I’m concerned. Remember, there are no rules in a knife fight. I just want my candidate to show up with guns. I know the other side will.
As a Democrat I will support the nominee. If it’s Obama, I will do so because, as Pat Buchanan said, “John McCain will make George Bush look like Gandi.” That’s enough for me. But for now I want Hillary.
But would you do me a favor? Tell your new choice, Obama, that there is a whole lot of dis-respect coming out of his campaign for the 49% of the party that supports Hillary. Right now the difference in total vote, if everything is counted, is a mere 94,000 votes–0.4%. Hillary could take the lead tomorrow.
Clearly your post did not embody any of the dis-respect that has tarnished the progressive blogs this year.
But Obama is going to need Hillary supporters if he becomes the nominee. He pissed me off when he said he didn’t think his supporters would support Hillary. It pissed me off when Michelle Obama said she didn’t know if
she could support Hillary. Hillary has made me proud. She has consistently said from day one
she would work for the nominee. Obama’s new politics of hope is not evident in his and Michelle’s statements.
Obama and his fan base need to show a little more respect.
I want Hillary to keep fighting and I hope you will re-evaluate your switch by ditching the notion that “she’s a woman that’s not good enough.” Isn’t that what people say who deny they’re sexist–it’s not that women can’t do as good a job as men, it’s just that “this woman can’t do as good a job.” She’s just not the “right” woman right now? Substitute the word “black” for “woman” and see how that statement reads. Second thoughts?
Goldy’s Sister, IMHO it’s fine for you to support Obama. And it’s fine for you to switch from Hillary if you want to. But saying that Hillary Clinton is not “woman enough” or “the right woman” is sexist on it’s face. You can do it. Just be honest and admit that’s what you’re doing.
Better to just say you don’t like her, Obama’s better,or sumthin’, but I can’t buy your “wrong woman” argument.
With all due respect, it may not be that Hillary has failed you. It might turn out that you will fail this moment in history.
Check out the “problems” Obama will face in the general posted at
http://www.politico.com/news/s...../9564.html.
Please tell Goldy that he has done a great job with his site. Unlike a lot of left blogistan
he has kept things pretty even re this primary. That’s why I keep readin’.
Sign me Man Who Likes Hillary for the Playoffs this year. Not waiting or trading for a future woman draft choice
RonK @ 78 It almost isn’t even worth arguing with the Obama supporters, they refuse to accept the reality of the vicious race baiting of his campaign, which you linked to in an earlier comment. An article filled with concrete examples of it, completely ignored by the Obama supporters. The so-called “proud leftist” @ #64 writes about H’s campaign but gives no examples-it really is despicable what they’re doing to her.
As for Goldy’s endorsement of Obama, might it have something to do with this?
I feel just the opposite.
I started out lukewarm for both Clinton and Obama, and now am a solid Clinton supporter, and think Obama is just Not Ready For Prime Time.
Every day brings another shudder-worthy gaffe — you can’t run a presidential campaign like you’re running for Prom King.
Today, he claimed that McCain would be an improvement over Bush — good move, dude! He whines about the high price of arugula? Puh-leese. He won’t talk about Hamas, but whines about finishing his waffle?
His health care plan is regressive, not progressive. He dumps on the Clinton years of peace and prosperity — hunh? He lets Rezko help him buy his house? He flips off his opponent in public, uses Jay-Z gestures to imply that’s she’s dirt?
His supporter at a fund-raiser call his opponent a “big f*cking whore” and no one from his campaign says that was a really wrong thing to do? He does want to win at any cost.
And most of his strategy is to fake it till he makes it, spreading fairy dust propaganda trying to get his opponent to quit.
He can’t weather another debate loss, so he cancels it — does that make him look weak? Yes. Does that make him look like a loser? Yes.
Go ahead and buy new new new shiny shiny new new change new if you want. It’s not what I want. I prefer competence, not hype.
Good choice. Yay!
If all you do is look at how each has managed and financed their campaigns, you get a good idea as to who the leader is, who can motivate people, who can rally people to a cause.
We need real fundamental change in politics and Obama is best to inspire that.
Contrary to the belief that their policies are similar, Obama is stronger on both foreign policy and economics.
Obama can win the general election. Just take a look at any of the general election maps and play around with the electoral votes. People are so ready for change. Americans are not going to vote for war and someone who’s weak on the economy. It’s just not going to happen.
Also, look no further than the 1.3 million ordinary folks who have funded the campaign so far.
RonK @ 78
Mass manias surely occur. The conservative movement of the last 40 years or so is surely an example, though hardly comparable to more nefarious historical examples. Nonetheless, the Reagan idolatry of current Republicanism is a bit frightening. To your point–for you to consider those who support Obama as part of some sort of “mania” reflects nuttiness on your part. Ted Kennedy, Bill Richardson, John Kerry, and however many more seasoned leaders of the Democratic Party to be accused of “mania” because they support Obama indicates that you are not a very careful thinker. And, is your comment more offensive than mine? You bet your ass. I have friends who support Hillary and I don’t accuse them of delusions. You, my friend, need to get your ass over to the Republican Party where those who suffer from delusions form the party’s core.
81: “Today, he claimed that McCain would be an improvement over Bush — good move, dude!”
Do you disagree? If not, then what the hell’s wrong with honesty? I believe McCain would be an improvement over Bush. Hell, my goldfish would be an improvement over Bush. So, what is wrong with saying so? I think we’ve all had enough of political gotcha shit. Obama offers a way out.
Bush will go down as one of the greatest
Presidents ever because of his stance on terrorism. It’s far bigger of an issue than a tiny liberal brain can understand. We may
have to put up with a little inflation, but
maybe Bush will be on the $10,000 bill when
they bring it back into circulation. He’s
still a hero.
85
Markie, I know that reality is hard. Bad things happen in the real world. But, I don’t think that making a hero of GW will make you feel better. That requires too much fantasy. Rather, I think cartoons are better–they have more truth than your post. I always liked Rocky and Bullwinkle or Roadrunner. Why don’t you try watching cartoons instead of Fox News? Then, you might be a bit less disconnected to everyone else around you.
@71
That couldn’t happen, did it?
Huh? Crack is bad for you, Ron.
Can Obama beat McCain? That is not the question right now. The question is which Democrat would make the best president.
After having seen both in person this past week, studying the issues and talking to campaign volunteers from both sides, the answert is onvious to me. I am voting for Barack.
I was leaning that way since the first time I heard Obama speak. He inspired me. He was speaking just a few days after the whole “bitter” flap. All the pundits were saying “he has to apologize.” Obama came out and refused to waiver. I meant what I said, he told the crowd. I might not have said it as well as I would have liked to, but it is true and I am sticking to it.
That showed me he had the one thing I worried he might lack: Courage of his convictions. I won’t tell you what I think you want to hear, or what the polls say I should tell you, I will tell you the truth, he said.
My decision was clinched after a conversation Sunday with a Clinton volunteer. I asked this young lady, an attorney by profession, to make a case for her candidate. Why should I vote for Hillary?
Her answers? First she said she liked Barack, but he is younger and should wait his turn so we can have Democrats in office for 16 years.
When I told her that was absurd, she told me the problem with Barack is that “he doesn’t know how to play the game and you have to be able to play the game to get things done in Wasshington.”
Well, I saw how Hillary got things done before by playing the game with health care. I have seen how politicians have gotten things done for years, decades even, playing the game.
I am sick and tired of the game. I am sick and tired of lobbyists and corporations winning the game because they write the rules and rewrite them whenever it is convenient to serve their interests. I am sick and tired of the rules never favoring people over corporations. I am sick and tired of playing this game.
I am ready for the game to change. In the 60s and early 70s, we said to hell with the game and we changed things. We brought a bull$&!# war to an end.
But somewhere we came up with this idea the only way to really make a change was to work within the system. So we cut our hair, got jobs in the corporations, bought gas guzzlers and drove them downhill.
I hear the comparisons between Obama and JFK. I think they are valid in one respect. JFK challenged us to make a difference and millions joined the peace corp to do just that. He challenged us to go to the moon, and we pulled together as a nation and did it.
Barack Obama is willing to challenge us, too. He challenges us to put race aside. He challenges us to end big oil’s control of our lives and big money’s control of our pocketbooks. He challenges us to give our children knowledge, not just the ability to pass a test (and he does not pretend schools can do it alone, he constantly reminds us that parents need to be a big part of that process).
Most of all, Barack challenges us to change the rules and change the game. To have the courage to take back our country from the greedheads and hate mongers who want to keep us divided so they can continue to have their way and to hell with the people.
Hillary wants to be more of the same. She is Republican Lite. Different lobbyists, same old crap.
Hillary tells us she should be president because she is more experienced. At what? She was Bill’s wife, not his vice president. If being married to the man makes you qualified for the job, Robin Givens should be the heavyweight champion of the world (Thanks for the line Tracy).
Enough is enough. I am ready for real change.
I am ready to take back my country. Just like the Iraquis, I am sick and tired of being an occupied nation, controlled by US corporations who ccare more about the $ than the people.
I will vote for Barack Obama … today in the Pennsylvania primary and again in November.
O-blah-blah is a bred & raised Chicago-style political thug with a veneer as thin & cheap as a Wal-Mart end table.
New Age Secular Progressives are searching for their savior. Hence O-blah-blah.
The guy has the MOST Liberal Voting Record in the Senate. Being THE MOST LIBERAL makes him an extremist….except in the eyes of KLOWNS.
At least RonK has done some serious research & soul-searching…..unlike the LEMMINGS of HA looking for their own personal Savior.
Anyone who speaks poorly of O-blah-blah is either a racist or stupid.
Sounds pretty arrogant & elitist to me!
I guess it makes some of you KLOWNS feel like a part of something when sipping your Starbucks and discussing the Daily KOS, huh?
Sheesh…you KLOWNS are shallow.
Hats off to RonK for at least providing some critical thinking (although RonK, I think Chillary is dishonest).
proud leftist @ 84 — Your choice of exemplars (Kennedy, Kerry, Richardson) in this context is hilarious … unintentionally , I’m sure, but in context of the Iraq War mania analogy, it “indicates that you are not a very careful thinker”, doesn’t it?
Kennedy bought the mania, dissented from AUMF on narrower technical and tactical grounds (US Senate, 2002-10-04):
Kerry bought it whole hog (US Senate, 2002-10-09):
Richardson (CNN, 2003-02-18):
The 40-year conservative arc is not an example of mass mania, but it is a case in point that short-lived mania can have longstanding consequences.
As for your insistence that “The only possible basis for supporting Hillary in the primaries then voting for McCain in the general is sour grapes”, in spite of the consequential argument presented that Obama will not end politics as we know it (he will only end progressive politics) — you can go fcuk yourself.
[Obviously I did not tell you to go fuck yourself, any more than Obama gave Hillary the finger. I just has a fleeting notion that one of those French Connection tee-shirts would look good on you, didn’t I?]
All I can say is that Hilary has the White House experience and practical knowledge to run the country. Barack is just a little too idealistic which is all well and good but is not all it’s cracked up to be. Watching the Philly debates I couldn’t help but be dismayed by the way he kept backtracking over issues like taxes and foreign policy. But who ever gets the final nod, I think all Democrats should support that candidate to the nth degree because what this country can’t tolerate is another 4-8 years of Bush-type politics.