Barack Obama’s victory speech after the South Carolina primary was exceptional. He didn’t mince words, but took direct aim at the racial undercurrent that had begun to dog the democratic primaries. He pointed out that, while there may well be racism and sexism and all that stuff, playing on that was beneath us, and that we all strive to be better than that. It is not, he observed, "the America we want to be."
And that’s precisely why I’m going to go with Obama in the primaries. He has that ability to inspire us all to look past divisiveness and seek to be who we want to be. To reach for the better in all of us. Good stuff. Maybe even great stuff.
Now, I still agree with Paul Krugman that many of Obama’s policy initiatives are flat. Hillary Clinton has far more knowledge and vision in her policy proposals, but she has been unable to inspire – except, of course, for that brief window between Iowa and New Hampshire. Obama’s health care plan was seriously muddled, as Krugman explains here.
That’s precisely why I had switched from being an early Obama supporter - to neutral - to favoring Clinton. Now I’m back behind Obama, and it is entirely because of his ability to inspire about the right thing at the right time. We, democrats, Americans, and the entire world, are in desperate need of inspiration -- inspiration to seek friendship and brotherhood and cooperation with everyone else on the planet; inspiration to work together for the betterment of all our lots. Obama has that voice, that ability and that vision. That ability was there in his 2004 speech at the Democratic Convention to a fair extent, but he has raised his game a notch (or three) over the course of the last six months. He was really faltering over the summer, but now, he is something special. I suspect it is the confidence he has gained from such strong support and from a couple primary wins.
I have also been sorely disappointed with how the Clintons have been running their campaign. Bill has been talking some trash, and while trash-talk is expected, Bill has lapsed into falsehood. And that’s not cool. And now Hillary wants to seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida, after all the candidates agreed not to campaign there? In Michigan, the other candidates removed their names from the slate, but not Hillary. And with the Florida primary happening today, Hillary’s delegate statement can only be seen for what it is - campaigning in Florida. I have one word for that tactic – cheating! It is cheating, and it is sorely disappointing. Just when we want, need, crave inspiration, the Clintons go in the other direction. No thank you!
Meanwhile, Obama has chosen to embrace inspiration, to charge us to be the America we want to be, not what we have been over the past eight years (or longer). And, Ted Kennedy’s endorsement of Obama also guarantees that Obama’s policy initiatives will be goosed up a notch. Kennedy and Obama appeared on the Today Show this morning, and when the singularly annoying Matt Lauer tried to confront the two about Obama’s plan not offering universal health insurance, Kennedy just came out and stated that an Obama presidency would come forth with a universal coverage plan. Good. That’s precisely where Obama needs the help, in the policy details and in pushing his vision even further.
I think an Obama presidency would be a singularly healing phenomenon throughout the world. The United States could reclaim all of those principles that are embodied in our Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, but have been left on the dust heap by the Bush Administration. Obama could show the world, and ourselves, that we are a country who stands behind our ideals, and indeed tries to live by them.
That is why I’m now, once again, an Obama man. And I hope you’ll go for Obama too.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Sunday, January 13, 2008
My Pitch on Social Security
We all get older, each of us, every day. There comes a time when we are no longer able to do all the hard work we used to do. There was a time when, once you were no longer able to work, you were out of luck. You would wind up on the street, starving, poor. President Roosevelt came up with a better way. If we all chipped in, we could guarantee a modest income to those of us too old or disabled to work any longer. It was never meant to be a lot of money, but hopefully it would keep us off the street, keep us fed and sheltered, so that we could live out our lives with some dignity.
The conservatives want to change that. They see all that money going into the social security insurance program, and they want a piece of it. They want to make a buck by forcing all of us to invest in their companies, rather than in each other. And they don't want to give any guarantees about what they will do with our investment.
Social Security is the insurance we give each other that we will be able to live out our lives in dignity. Its one of the ways we Americans say that we're all in this together, and we have each other's backs.
As Paul Krugman repeatedly explains in his column, the tales of the imminent collapse of Social Security are tall tales, just like those tales of weapons of mass destruction. The conservatives say it so they can ram through their ideas, turn a quick buck, and reward their friends and cronies. All programs need adjusting from time to time, and Social Security is no exception. But there's no reason to abandon our agreement to watch out for each other when we get older. That's not what Americans do, we don't welsh on our agreements. Let's keep Social Security as an investment in each other, and not turn it into another cash cow for the super-wealthy conservative elite. We're all in this together, and let's keep it that way.
The conservatives want to change that. They see all that money going into the social security insurance program, and they want a piece of it. They want to make a buck by forcing all of us to invest in their companies, rather than in each other. And they don't want to give any guarantees about what they will do with our investment.
Social Security is the insurance we give each other that we will be able to live out our lives in dignity. Its one of the ways we Americans say that we're all in this together, and we have each other's backs.
As Paul Krugman repeatedly explains in his column, the tales of the imminent collapse of Social Security are tall tales, just like those tales of weapons of mass destruction. The conservatives say it so they can ram through their ideas, turn a quick buck, and reward their friends and cronies. All programs need adjusting from time to time, and Social Security is no exception. But there's no reason to abandon our agreement to watch out for each other when we get older. That's not what Americans do, we don't welsh on our agreements. Let's keep Social Security as an investment in each other, and not turn it into another cash cow for the super-wealthy conservative elite. We're all in this together, and let's keep it that way.
Why I am pro-choice
It is, I believe, a fundamental tenet of liberty that people have the right to set their own course in life, to make their own decisions as to whom to love, and whether or not to have a family. The legislation of personal choice is contrary to the very meaning of liberty. We do not allow our government to say who can and cannot have children. We certainly don't allow government to force people to reproduce, any more than we would allow government to force people not to have children.
Those who say that the framers of the Constitution would not have wanted women to determine the course of their own lives overlook the word that embraces self-determination, a word that is in the very preamble to that document: liberty. The Constitution does not allow the government to tell us who to love, or when to have children. It does not allow the government to tell us how many children we can have, and it does not allow the government to force us to have children we don't want to have. It doesn't matter if its morally right or wrong, the very concept of liberty forbids the government from making those choices for us.
People have the right to pursue their own destiny: women as much as men. Forced reproduction would consign women to a second class, it would say that, in the eyes of the government, their sole function is to produce more children, and if that function is triggered, all other considerations of a woman's liberty are cast aside. That is not what liberty is all about.
On another track, the world cannot support an infinite amount of people. We all know the dangers that overpopulation poses. It makes no sense to force American women to bring unwanted children into the world. It doesn't make for a better world, it doesn't make for a safer world, it doesn't make for a happier world.
That's why the choice must be left to the woman. It is her body, it is her life that must be given over to any pregnancy. The decision ultimately does rest with her, and nothing is served by having the law pretend that isn't so. They are the ones that must live with the consequences of that choice, and it must be theirs to make, lest the word "liberty"be stripped of its meaning. We're all in this together, and the lives of each woman matters.
Those who say that the framers of the Constitution would not have wanted women to determine the course of their own lives overlook the word that embraces self-determination, a word that is in the very preamble to that document: liberty. The Constitution does not allow the government to tell us who to love, or when to have children. It does not allow the government to tell us how many children we can have, and it does not allow the government to force us to have children we don't want to have. It doesn't matter if its morally right or wrong, the very concept of liberty forbids the government from making those choices for us.
People have the right to pursue their own destiny: women as much as men. Forced reproduction would consign women to a second class, it would say that, in the eyes of the government, their sole function is to produce more children, and if that function is triggered, all other considerations of a woman's liberty are cast aside. That is not what liberty is all about.
On another track, the world cannot support an infinite amount of people. We all know the dangers that overpopulation poses. It makes no sense to force American women to bring unwanted children into the world. It doesn't make for a better world, it doesn't make for a safer world, it doesn't make for a happier world.
That's why the choice must be left to the woman. It is her body, it is her life that must be given over to any pregnancy. The decision ultimately does rest with her, and nothing is served by having the law pretend that isn't so. They are the ones that must live with the consequences of that choice, and it must be theirs to make, lest the word "liberty"be stripped of its meaning. We're all in this together, and the lives of each woman matters.
Clinton Can't Seem to Stay Positive
Well, in the week since the New Hampshire primary, I had hoped to see a new, more personable and spontaneous Hillary Clinton. But so far the results are mixed at best. This whole race kerfuffle is really disappointing.
Hillary and Bill have both said some dumb things in the past week and a half. Hillary's comment about Martin Luther King Jr. and Lyndon Johnson in particular was ill-considered. Just explain what you meant and move on. Claiming Barack's campaign is stoking the race issue, rather than moving on, is silly. It just keeps the ill-considered comment in people's minds all that much longer.
And Bill's comment about Barack's previous statements about the Iraq war was disingenuous. And while Barack may be trying to build up his initial opposition while downplaying the fact that, once he got into the senate he was as unable to change things as those he was criticizing, branding that as moral superiority and then calling it a fairy tale was another poor choice of words. While I understand Bill was upset at how his wife was being treated and at what appeared to be the imminent end of her political aspirations, he is a former president, and must act accordingly in public.
Now the whole thing is blowing into incriminations about using the race card. Drop it, all of you. Please! I really don't care to hear any of this stuff, and whichever one of the two, Barack or Hillary, does the most negative stuff is going to lose a lot of votes and probably the campaign.
Here's what I do want to hear from Hillary -- how is she going to be DIFFERENT than Bill? I liked Bill Clinton well enough, he did some good stuff, but he spent too much of his presidency triangulating and playing to the perceived middle. I don't want another eight years of that triangulating bulls__t!!!! Nor does anyone. I hope somebody tells that to Hillary. I do want something different. Bill was good enough, but I want GREAT!
From Barack, I'd like to hear that he is taking the criticism of his policy initiatives into consideration. Paul Krugman in particular has been taking Barack to task for ill-advised and unworkable economic platforms. And I trust Krugman's analysis. So let's hope Barack lets us know his policy platforms are continuing to evolve, that he's hearing and reconsidering. Best of all would be if he showed he knew how to draw experienced, intelligent people to him and -- most importantly -- that he can listen to their analysis and act on it. That is what a President needs to do.
And Bill, your complaint that Barack has been getting a free pass is crap. Krugman, who is no small voice, has been repeatedly raking Barack's platforms over the coals. You want to add pizazz to your complaints, just echo Krugman's analysis.
I remain undecided between the two. Today, though, I'm leaning more Barack. And if he can show that Lincolnish ability to recognize greatness and draw it to him, then he'll secure my vote. Maybe yours too?
Hillary and Bill have both said some dumb things in the past week and a half. Hillary's comment about Martin Luther King Jr. and Lyndon Johnson in particular was ill-considered. Just explain what you meant and move on. Claiming Barack's campaign is stoking the race issue, rather than moving on, is silly. It just keeps the ill-considered comment in people's minds all that much longer.
And Bill's comment about Barack's previous statements about the Iraq war was disingenuous. And while Barack may be trying to build up his initial opposition while downplaying the fact that, once he got into the senate he was as unable to change things as those he was criticizing, branding that as moral superiority and then calling it a fairy tale was another poor choice of words. While I understand Bill was upset at how his wife was being treated and at what appeared to be the imminent end of her political aspirations, he is a former president, and must act accordingly in public.
Now the whole thing is blowing into incriminations about using the race card. Drop it, all of you. Please! I really don't care to hear any of this stuff, and whichever one of the two, Barack or Hillary, does the most negative stuff is going to lose a lot of votes and probably the campaign.
Here's what I do want to hear from Hillary -- how is she going to be DIFFERENT than Bill? I liked Bill Clinton well enough, he did some good stuff, but he spent too much of his presidency triangulating and playing to the perceived middle. I don't want another eight years of that triangulating bulls__t!!!! Nor does anyone. I hope somebody tells that to Hillary. I do want something different. Bill was good enough, but I want GREAT!
From Barack, I'd like to hear that he is taking the criticism of his policy initiatives into consideration. Paul Krugman in particular has been taking Barack to task for ill-advised and unworkable economic platforms. And I trust Krugman's analysis. So let's hope Barack lets us know his policy platforms are continuing to evolve, that he's hearing and reconsidering. Best of all would be if he showed he knew how to draw experienced, intelligent people to him and -- most importantly -- that he can listen to their analysis and act on it. That is what a President needs to do.
And Bill, your complaint that Barack has been getting a free pass is crap. Krugman, who is no small voice, has been repeatedly raking Barack's platforms over the coals. You want to add pizazz to your complaints, just echo Krugman's analysis.
I remain undecided between the two. Today, though, I'm leaning more Barack. And if he can show that Lincolnish ability to recognize greatness and draw it to him, then he'll secure my vote. Maybe yours too?
Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Iowa, New Hampshire and Sexism
For those of you who, like me, find themselves forced to pay attention to politics by some unknown and unseen hand (Curse you Adam Smith! Keep your invisible hands to yourself!), the arc of events from the Iowa Caucuses to the New Hampshire Primary was simply remarkable.
First, let me say up front that I like all of the major Democratic candidates, and would be happy as a clam with either Clinton, Edwards or Obama as the nominee. Obama rocketed out of Iowa with an amazing speech and a huge margin, and I thought, as did many others, that the whole shebang might in fact be over.
But then the piling on began. And something strange occurred to me, and, as the blogs and opinionists and New Hampshire results showed, to a bunch of other folk as well. The media almost seemed to relish Hillary Clinton’s defeat. Now, I would expect that from Fox Noise, but not so much from actual reporters. There was this glee, which was kind of sickening.
The debate last Saturday night showed exactly what was happening. The moderator, perhaps picking up on an unnoticed bias already creeping into political reporting nationwide, referred to the candidates as Senator Edwards, Senator Obama, Governor Richardson and ... that’s right ... "Mrs. Clinton." WTF? That’s like a slap in the face – "sexism is happening here."
And she did quite well in that debate – probably the best I have ever seen her do. She was poised, calm, off the cuff, and genuine. Wonderful. Edwards and Obama kept up their monotonous attacks of "status quo," which I think hurt Edwards in particular.
But the clincher for me came when the guest moderator asked Clinton about her "likeability," or rather, lack thereof. Now we all know that there is a certain portion of the public that fears and dislikes smart, assertive, competent women. They feel threatened by such women, its pure inferiority complex. Time and time again women in positions of authority get branded the "bitch" or the "witch" or the "dragon" or whathaveyou. But that has nothing to do with whether that particular woman is right for the job or not.
And I realized that much of the piling on was in fact just sexism. Beer-swigging blowhards like Chris Matthews and Tim Russert top the list of supposedly genuine newsmen who are unquestionably sexist. Matthews was going ape-shit on Tuesday night as the New Hampshire results rolled in, and there was a genuine tension between the MSNBC panel members who got the sexism and those who did not. The whole likeability question is a crock, in this context. It’s a substitute for sexism, pure and simple.
Now, that doesn’t mean that all of the complaints about Clinton are sexist. She really was coming off as contrived, overrehearsed, painfully on point and unable to show the person behind the facade. But all of that changed between Iowa and New Hampshire. I much prefer the current Hillary to the pre-Iowa one. And I would be quite pleased if she ends up being the nominee.
And I do have genuine concerns about Obama’s experience. But can you imagine an Obama who had been Vice President for eight years? Now there would be an unstoppable candidate! I hope Clinton and Obama can remain positive enough toward each other to make this dream team a possibility!
First, let me say up front that I like all of the major Democratic candidates, and would be happy as a clam with either Clinton, Edwards or Obama as the nominee. Obama rocketed out of Iowa with an amazing speech and a huge margin, and I thought, as did many others, that the whole shebang might in fact be over.
But then the piling on began. And something strange occurred to me, and, as the blogs and opinionists and New Hampshire results showed, to a bunch of other folk as well. The media almost seemed to relish Hillary Clinton’s defeat. Now, I would expect that from Fox Noise, but not so much from actual reporters. There was this glee, which was kind of sickening.
The debate last Saturday night showed exactly what was happening. The moderator, perhaps picking up on an unnoticed bias already creeping into political reporting nationwide, referred to the candidates as Senator Edwards, Senator Obama, Governor Richardson and ... that’s right ... "Mrs. Clinton." WTF? That’s like a slap in the face – "sexism is happening here."
And she did quite well in that debate – probably the best I have ever seen her do. She was poised, calm, off the cuff, and genuine. Wonderful. Edwards and Obama kept up their monotonous attacks of "status quo," which I think hurt Edwards in particular.
But the clincher for me came when the guest moderator asked Clinton about her "likeability," or rather, lack thereof. Now we all know that there is a certain portion of the public that fears and dislikes smart, assertive, competent women. They feel threatened by such women, its pure inferiority complex. Time and time again women in positions of authority get branded the "bitch" or the "witch" or the "dragon" or whathaveyou. But that has nothing to do with whether that particular woman is right for the job or not.
And I realized that much of the piling on was in fact just sexism. Beer-swigging blowhards like Chris Matthews and Tim Russert top the list of supposedly genuine newsmen who are unquestionably sexist. Matthews was going ape-shit on Tuesday night as the New Hampshire results rolled in, and there was a genuine tension between the MSNBC panel members who got the sexism and those who did not. The whole likeability question is a crock, in this context. It’s a substitute for sexism, pure and simple.
Now, that doesn’t mean that all of the complaints about Clinton are sexist. She really was coming off as contrived, overrehearsed, painfully on point and unable to show the person behind the facade. But all of that changed between Iowa and New Hampshire. I much prefer the current Hillary to the pre-Iowa one. And I would be quite pleased if she ends up being the nominee.
And I do have genuine concerns about Obama’s experience. But can you imagine an Obama who had been Vice President for eight years? Now there would be an unstoppable candidate! I hope Clinton and Obama can remain positive enough toward each other to make this dream team a possibility!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)