|
|
|
June 5th, 2008
04:26 pm - History lesson: RFK
Forty years and 1 day ago, Robert Kennedy was assassinated.
I have to confess, I actually knew very little about his assassination. I have always lumped it in with MLK and JFK's assassinations, and never thought much about it.
So I didn't realize that his assassin was a Palestinian-American, who murdered him because of support for Israel. A program on NPR yesterday offered the theory that this was the first anti-Israel act of terrorism in America, but at the time, this explanation for his death was not offered or made.
Furthermore, on NPR today, they replayed an excerpt of a powerful, spontaneous speech RFK made in Indianapolis the night MLK was assassinated:
"What we need in the United States is not division; what we need in the United States is not hatred; what we need in the United States is not violence and lawlessness, but is love, and wisdom, and compassion toward one another, and a feeling of justice toward those who still suffer within our country, whether they be white or whether they be black.
So I ask you tonight to return home, to say a prayer for the family of Martin Luther King -- yeah, it's true -- but more importantly to say a prayer for our own country, which all of us love -- a prayer for understanding and that compassion of which I spoke.
We can do well in this country. We will have difficult times. We've had difficult times in the past, but we -- and we will have difficult times in the future. It is not the end of violence; it is not the end of lawlessness; and it's not the end of disorder.
But the vast majority of white people and the vast majority of black people in this country want to live together, want to improve the quality of our life, and want justice for all human beings that abide in our land.
And let's dedicate ourselves to what the Greeks wrote so many years ago: to tame the savageness of man and make gentle the life of this world. Let us dedicate ourselves to that, and say a prayer for our country and for our people."
The whole speech is pretty phenomenal. I encourage you all to read it.
And what blows me away is this fact, which I just learned today: All across America the night MLK was killed, there were riots. I have excerpts of Nina Simone's concert from the night MLK was murdered, and she's much more angry, sounds much more hopeless than RFK is here. Undertandably so. But in Indianapolis, things were quiet. Also, apparently many of the people traveling with RFK that night urged him not to go to the place where he had planned a speech, because they thought it would be "dangerous" (read: Black). He went anyway, and spoke from the heart. And people listened.
That is the best indicator of hope I can imagine. And that is the kind of leader we need today.
I hope Barack Obama can be that leader for us.
|
June 4th, 2008
10:06 am - Hope
A little hope
is a dangerous thing.
In a way,
it is safer to remain
disillusioned and bitter,
because it keeps your expectations
low. I want to hope
that Obama is elected president
and that if Obama is elected president
our country will shift
back in the right direction.
But I am not convinced.
I cannot dare to hope
because I do not share his faith
in my fellow citizens.
I spend too much time in sports chatrooms
and listening to people in
Texas and Florida. I am not
convinced that many people
in this country
would not be happy
to see us become a theocracy.
And I am not convinced
that many people
in this country
would not be happy to see me,
my Shema-saying self
my woman-marrying self
emigrate or be closeted
forever.
I am not convinced
that the rot
this country
has become
is not within.
(This poem was inspired by the 3/28/08 Real Time with Bill Maher, in which he said: "Do you think it’s really just the neocons, just the Bush Administration, or is there a rot in America, America itself, that’s a lot deeper? A lot of people, I think, in blue states and places that vote that way, would think, “Oh, yeah, we get rid of the Bushes and, gosh, America returns to that America we used to love and think about with – with fondness.” But, I don’t know. Don’t you think the rot is a little deeper than just the Bush Administration?")
|
May 15th, 2008
03:49 pm - A must read
I heard this on NPR last night, and actually paid the $3.95 for a copy of the transcript. I figure this blog is not for commercial purposes, so sharing it with you doesn't seem to violate any copyright laws. And it's that good. Read it - regardless of whether you support Clinton, Obama, or McCain - it's one of the best things I've read or heard in months.
Ms. SUSAN CHEEVER (Writer): Why is it that the more Hillary loses, the better I like her? Yes, I know she won last night, but that's already being dismissed. To me, she's glowing with the inner fire of the warrior in a battle she can't win. Why do I identify with that so much? Why do I feel, after 40 years of voting that at last, for once, there's a politician who truly represents me and not just because she wears pantsuits.
When I tell a handsome man at a party that I support Hillary, he looks my black pantsuit up and down. That figures; you're an older woman, he says. I'm hurt but he's right. Hillary has worn away her youth in the service of a difficult husband, a smart child and the ideal of service. She was never the pretty, simpering, long-legged blonde we were all supposed to be. She had to find another way to be a woman. Me, too. I love her because she's a loser and I'm a loser, I tell my brother.
But Sue, you're a big success, he says. Hillary is a big success, too. But she's a worker, and women don't get respect for being hard workers; they get respect for having good legs. She's a woman dedicated to social justice, and women don't get respect for their dedication, they get it for their baking skills. She's a woman with staying power, but women don't get respect for their staying power, they get respect for their sexual power.
My generation of women were told that our biggest job was to marry the right guy and the sooner the better. When I went for career counseling my last year of college, the dean gave me her condolences. All our best girls are engaged, she said. Oh yes, it sounds outrageously antique, but is it? I never talk for long about my 26-year-old daughter, a lawyer and an activist at Harvard without someone asking, and is she seeing someone?
Women like me usually run for president of the PTA or president of some nice arts organization. We don't usually get to run for president of the United States. At last, here's a woman who wants to play with the big boys and she's qualified, and she's giving them a run for their money, and I love her for that.
You can hear Susan Cheever reading it here.
|
03:38 pm - Congratulations, California!
You are officially now a "free state"!
2 down, 48 more to go.
|
May 14th, 2008
08:21 am - Politics schmolitics
Excerpted from a Yahoo news story:
"I remember what it was like in 1980, when the people who didn't win tore our party up," (Hillary) Clinton told a Democratic Party dinner in Billings, Montana, according to a report from ABC News. "And I'm here to tell ya that however these last states come out, my candidates, our family and our supporters will be here to get a victory in November for the Democrats."
Hillary, I hold you to this. However your campaign ends, don't let it end divisively. Find a way to step down gracefully.
By the way, this is the best website I have seen in a long time: Things Younger Than John McCain.
Also, I now have 29 votes of support for my nomination to the LJ Board.
If you think I would be a decent candidate, and want to express your support, don't forget to go here:
http://community.livejournal.com/lj_election_en/7581.html?mode=reply
|
May 8th, 2008
06:55 pm - In case this story got buried...
I found this story buried in Google News and thought it was too important to not make sure people noticed: A New York court has refused to even hear, much less overturn, an appellate court ruling stating that out-of-state same gender marriages have to be recognized. This paves the way for New York to simply allow same gender couples to marry, and is very, very important in the process of achieving marriage equality across the country.
But please note something else disturbing I learned: If you Google this news story, some of the top links that come up are for anti-queer "news" sites. Two of them are clearly anti-choice organizations, if you poke around a little. What tipped me off to their inauthenticity was their repeated use of putting the word marriage in quotes when referring to same-gender couples. This is very consistent with the insidious, clever, and manipulative tactics used by the anti-choice movement, like co-opting use of the word "life" for their own agenda.
It's quite disturbing, I think. In a more distracted moment I might not have noticed whose news story I was reading. And considering much of the people in this country only rely on quick soundbytes and TV news for their information, you can see how easy it is to manipulate people around things like...elections.
|
08:12 am - On Clinton and Obama
I was listening to an NPR program on the current state of the Democratic race last night, and it occurred to me that if the Democratic party wanted to end the race, they could do so, by putting pressure on all 268 of those uncommitted superdelegates to declare their votes. And as the superdelegates are the leadership of the Democratic party, they have more invested in the Democrats doing what is best for the party in the fall than anyone else.
My initial instinct was, come on, declare already so this thing will be over. But that is born out of my own anxiety, anxiety I see reflected in a lot of the commentary and news out there.
Upon further reflection, I concluded that the decision to prolong the race may in fact be very strategic. Who is talking about McCain right now? No one. He's growing older and more irrelevant with each passing day. On the other hand, whoever comes out the winner (and mathematically almost certain to be Obama) is getting daily press and attention. And that keeps the focus solidly where the Democrats want it: On them, and on the changes they want to see happen.
Incidentally, my unstatistical sample of 2 down in Arizona (one registered Republican, one registered independent) is that McCain is "old" and unpopular, and either Democrat is looking pretty good in comparison.
|
April 23rd, 2008
01:47 pm - Election Aftermath
So Clinton won Pennsylvania, as we expected. But Obama cut her margin from 20% to 10%, which one would expect with someone who outspent her 4 to 1. Problem is for Clinton, she needs some landslide wins in order to make up ground, and that seems statistically unlikely to happen. But Obama needs a couple landslide wins in order for it to not look like he's faltering. I think he's more likely to get that than she is, with North Carolina and Oregon coming up.
I have concluded that the long drawn out battle between the two of them is not a bad thing. It's keeping them relevant, and McCain is only getting older and getting less relevant. His unwavering support for Bush and the Iraq War is also only going to look more and more stupid as the war drags on and the economy tanks. And consistently, both Obama and Clinton poll better than McCain in a potential national election.
The problem I see with the Democrats is this: If Clinton gets the nomination, I fear some of the younger, louder Obama supporters will go toward third party candidates, and that we may have another 2000 election on our hands, where Nader/whoever getting 5% of the vote really matters. But if Obama gets the election, I fear some working class, white Clinton supporters will go toward McCain. And that too could tip the election toward McCain.
The best thing I think that could happen for the Democrats is that the economy continues to plummet, because nothing sparks a strong turnout and a regime change like a poor economy. So, I'm rooting for a deep and long recession, one that ends around the middle of January, when hopefully Clinton or Obama takes office.
|
March 31st, 2008
08:36 pm - On Obama
This is some of the best political analysis I think I've read or heard this election period. The whole article is worth reading, but this is the final paragraph, and I think sums his point up well:
"Obama is staking his political campaign on the very point he tried to make to Reverend Wright two decades ago: that the dreams and interests of hard-pressed Americans are more important than the matters of race. Democrats have been trying to make that argument for a long time, while Republicans have been winning elections. For a half a century, right wing populism has been the most successful political force in America, aided greatly by the tendency of liberals to to fall into the competing claims of identity groups. Obama is a black candidate who can tell Americans of all races to move beyond race. As such, he is uniquely positioned to put an end to this era, and uniquely vulnerable to becoming its latest victim." (George Packer, The New Yorker, March 31, 2008)
|
March 5th, 2008
09:03 am - Political anxiety
So Clinton won my home state, as well as Ohio and Rhode Island. Vermont becomes the only state in New England to swing toward Obama. Meanwhile, McCain has clinched the Republican nomination.
Is it harmful to the Dems that they are in such a long slugfest? ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) alchemi posted about this and listed reason why he thinks it may not be. I'm not convinced.
On the one hand, both Clinton and Obama are inspiring to their supporters, and polls show consistently that at least 70% of their supporters will vote for "the other one" regardless of who gets the nomination. So the energy they are both generating could be good for the Democrats in general, while McCain is generating a lukewarm response from fiscally conservative and socially conservative Republicans alike.
On the other hand, McCain now has exclusive access to his party's base, and if he can rally them together, they may coalesce in a way that helped the Fuhrer win two elections.
I'm anxious. Last night I could feel it in my chest. Maybe it was about the state of our country, maybe it was about other stuff that was going on. But I'm anxious. I am so desperate for some hope for this country, for a president who shares even a small fraction of my values, that I don't know what to do with myself.
|
February 21st, 2008
08:49 am - Politics in the sports world
I posted an interesting poll on a Spurs message board a few days ago, asking people how they define themselves politically. Even in the currently raucous world of sports, the political momentum is starting to leak out all over the place.
So far, out of 28 responses, we're pretty evenly split. 9 people identify as either "progressive" or "liberal." 3 people identify as "moderate" while 5 identify as "conservative." 7 people identify as "libertarian" and 4 people list themselves as "other."
The comments on the poll are illuminating - most of the people identify as some version of libertarian. They're socially liberal (they don't care about gay marriage or if you have an abortion) but they care about money and national security. Which explains why the Democrats have been slowly shifting towards the middle on these latter two issues, and trying to prevent the conservative Christians in the Republican camp from stirring up the gay marriage pot. But as I've often thought sports message boards provide a good litmus test for the fabled "middle America" I wonder whether the Dems have been too cautious - if most of these young voters don't CARE about social issues, let it get stirred up, and perhaps it will backfire. But on the other hand, if there is something else they can get them stirred up about, perhaps that's even better.
|
February 10th, 2008
12:32 am - Hmmm
 |
What's Your Political Philosophy?
created with QuizFarm.com |
| You scored as Old School Democrat Old school Democrats emphasize economic justice and opportunity. The Democratic ideal is best summarized by the Four Freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear.
Old School Democrat |
| 80% | New Democrat |
| 80% | Green |
| 80% | Foreign Policy Hawk |
| 50% | Libertarian |
| 40% | Socially Conservative Republican |
| 10% | Pro Business Republican |
| 0% |
|
How can I be equally and Old School Democrat and a New Democrat? Doesn't make sense.
Not sure which scares me more - the idea of McCain-Romney or McCain-Huckabee. They scare me in different directions, but the both scare me. And I think either one is a very really possiblity.
|
February 6th, 2008
08:53 am - Super Tuesday
The Democrats had almost TWICE as many people turn out to vote in their primary than the Republicans did. That's impressive. Clinton and Obama remain no less neck-and-neck than they were when they started, which makes me think that the smartest thing they could do would be to select the other one (whoever doesn't win the nomination) to be their VP. Clearly, both have a strong base of support, and they'd make a hell of a ticket for McCain-Huckabee, which is what I am now convinced will be the Republican ticket. But I wonder - can either Clinton or Obama put aside their egos and accept a VP role? It's hard to picture either one of them doing so. But pragmatically speaking, it's the smartest option. And in the big picture, ultimately, it's what would be best for our country. Because the consequences of having a Bush lapdog and another religious conservative for four more years could be devastating for this country.
|
January 30th, 2008
05:43 pm - Back to politics
I feel like I have to post today, in honor of my guy, John Edwards, who has officially dropped out of the race.
nerak_g posted a link to an interesting article about the state of our democracy in terms of open primaries.
As a registered independent I found it particularly interesting - he questions whether the open primary system is perpetuating a system in which candidates are constantly vying for the middle, marginalizing and alienating people on the wings.
I'm not sure I buy his argument, though. What do you think? I think the main reason Americans are constantly electing moderates, regardless of party, and both parties are constantly trying to find moderate candidates, is because America is already much, much more polarized than anyone truly realizes. I think the move to the middle is an effort to stabilize, which is either the very definition of democracy, or the antithesis of democracy. Maybe both.
The most telling line in his article was this throwaway line, however:
"As we discussed last week, the media has frozen out Edwards because their corporate owners are scared of him."
And THAT is the most depressing thing I've heard all week, although it's been my suspicion all along.
|
January 28th, 2008
09:49 pm - I may never post about anything but politics again
I find it interesting that despite the lengthy debate on my post yesterday, in which I seem to have become unwittingly the defense attorney for Clinton, I am becoming more and more convinced that Obama is the most electable candidate the progressives have.
Michael sent me this link, a blog post by a conservative reporter who makes the analogy of Obama and Democrats and Reagan and Republicans. It's an analogy with some merit. Obama has the rhetoric and the charisma to unify a lot of people on the left, in the same way that Reagan did for the Republicans, in a way they've been searching for ever since.
|
January 27th, 2008
12:51 pm - Sexism and politics
And this is why I think our country is not enlightened enough to elect a woman president:
"But I think this is what politicians do. They play up the good parts of their resume and play down the bits they'd rather people forgot about," she says. (Suzanne Goldenberg)
In the past few weeks, I have heard some very insidious things said and written about Hillary Clinton. Perhaps because of my own ambivalence about her as a candidate, I have overlooked them. But let's just look at the above quote as an example. It sounds like something that one could say about any one of us, regardless of gender, when we're applying for a new job. Yet it is used as an example of Clinton's big "flaw." Basically, she's demonized for doing exactly what everyone else does. Why? Because of sexism.
I've heard people complain Clinton is "insincere," people complain Clinton is "too self-serving," people complain that Clinton is not as qualified because she was "only" the First Lady - as if she spent the whole time sitting around knitting while she was in that position of power. And "insincere" and "self-serving" becomes "ambitious" and "diplomatic" - when those qualities are in a man.
No one ever dismisses a man's credentials because he's married to a powerful woman. That, my friends, is sexism.
And this is why, sadly, our country is not ready to elect a woman president. All the qualities that people perceive as positive in other politicians are demonized in Hillary Clinton.
I'm not a huge fan of hers - as I've said, she's my third choice of the Democrats - but let's call things out like they are. The reason lots of left-leaning, progressive people and conservative yahoos alike don't like her is simple: Sexism.
|
January 23rd, 2008
09:12 am - Politics=Irony
I finally decided which candidate I liked best, and now it seems he may be out of the running. I'm talking about John Edwards, and I am still holding out hope that if he can take the South, he may still be in it, especially with Clinton and Obama beating up on each other.
I've been reluctant to get behind Edwards, despite my gut pointing me that way for a few weeks, for a couple reasons. One, because he's a white man, and we've had too many of those in office in the history of the American experiment. Two, because I don't really trust any politicians all that much.
But Edwards stands out for a few important reasons. First of all, his willingness and enthusiasm for trying to take corporate money out of politics. Of course, this has meant his campaign has been underfunded, which may cost him the candidacy. But I really resonate with his passion for this. Secondly, he may be rich now, but he's the only candidate who grew up poor. He was the first in his family who went to college. That informs a person's experience, and I think it's time we had that sort of perspective in office. Third, he's got the most thought-out plan for withdrawing from Iraq, for how to approach world politics in general, and for health care. Fourth, he's from the South, so he might just have a chance of winning the white working class in the South, who are the voters the Democrats need to win back in order to take back this country.
If Edwards doesn't get the nomination, I'm really split on Obama and Clinton. I don't really like the idea of having two families control the White House, and I don't really like Clinton's style, but on the other hand, Obama seems very unseasoned on issues of foreign policy and his insight into these issues seems to be pretty weak much of the time. I'll wind up voting for either one of them, but I don't really trust either one of them all that much. And I worry that neither one of them can win.
I suppose the bottom line is, I think Obama is slightly more electable than Clinton, so if Edwards is out by the time Super Tuesday comes around, I'll probably throw my hat in for him.
|
January 15th, 2008
11:56 pm - A modest proposal
Could someone please explain to me how it is that Clinton was apparently "the only top tier Democrat on the ballot" (AP news wire) in Michigan? I really don't understand how this works.
Also, this article is really excellent - it talks about how Romney (or Governor Goodhair, as we used to call him out here in Massachusetts) totally pandered to the Michigan voters, lying to them about things he would try to do (you know, fabricate auto industry jobs out of thin air) rather than advise them to go green in auto technology, like McCain did. Unfortunately, pandering apparently worked. But anyone who's been to a poetry slam knows that it does at least 25% of the time. In poetry slams, however, the best person usually wins in the end. Same in the NBA Finals, probably in other sports. I wish I could say I believed the same would be true in politics.
Which brings me to a proposal. What if we forced our politicians to face off in a best-of-seven match up, like in the NBA? A series of 7 debates, with elections held afterwards, focused on different states and different issues each time, in a series of 1:1 match-ups. I think it would make a lot more sense and be a lot more interesting than our current primary system, which, by the way, have I mentioned that I don't understand?
|
January 6th, 2008
08:51 pm - It's all about politics this weekend
89% Mike Gravel
82% Dennis Kucinich
78% John Edwards
77% Chris Dodd
75% Barack Obama
74% Hillary Clinton
73% Joe Biden
71% Bill Richardson
35% Rudy Giuliani
33% Ron Paul
29% Tom Tancredo
24% John McCain
21% Mike Huckabee
19% Mitt Romney
13% Fred Thompson
2008 Presidential Candidate Matching Quiz
|
January 5th, 2008
10:18 pm - On the Democratic candidates
I like Edwards more and more, because of his efforts to take on the corporate control of our political system. And I find him the post persuasive speaker I've heard since Bill Clinton, and I've thought that since seeing him in the vice presidential debate in 2004. But I want to vote for one of the other three, because I'm sick of having a white man in office.
Obama is not nearly as charismatic when it's an open discussion style.
Richardson is actually a very persuasive speaker, but he constantly looks stiff and I think his statements about Iraq sound more like grandstanding than an actual thought-out plan.
I don't have faith in any of the candidates to protect my marriage from being declared unconstitutional, which would make me a second class citizen.
|
|
|