Did Obama Just Lose My Vote?

This is serious. I’ve been saying for quite a while that Obama has not yet earned my vote and I am quite happy voting for Nader to help strengthen efforts toward a multi-party system. However, I voted for Obama in the primary here in Texas and was excited to vote for the first viable African-American candidate in the U.S.

Also, this is the most important election in years, if for no other reason than the necessity to populate the Supreme Court with judges who will protect civil liberties unlike those Bush has appointed or McCain would appoint.

While I have continuously lambasted the lack of character Hillary Clinton and her husband have shown during the primary season, I would not say I have been sipping “Obama Kool-Aid.” I understand that his “Change We Can Believe In” slogan is only as effective as his ability - to put it simply - to get things done. And politicians have to work together to accomplish progress. (Unless you’re President Bush, in which case you use the 9/11 attacks and existence of terrorism to scare Americans and politicians alike into marching behind your efforts to make the U.S. more of an authoritarian regime than ever before. Ugh, the thought makes it difficult to keep my coffee and chocolate granola cereal down.)

Obama is a politician first. With a degree in Government, I never lose sight of this. While Democrats fall in love (and Republicans fall in line) we must not forget that politicians must operate within the existing confines of the Washington Dance. This will inevitably lead to widespread disapointment with Obama, when he’s president, because he simply cannot please everyone and will have to compromise in order to accomplish certain goals. A president must make decisions when no option is the right one. It’s a hard gig - the hardest one in the world; I thoroughly recognize this.

However, much of my free time this week has been spent trolling the internet for a reasonable justification for Obama’s approval of the new FISA Act of 2008. Of course, I already have my fair share of underlying bitterness because the Democrats have performed disgracefully since taking control of the Congress. They are inexplicably banner ankle-grabbers again and again despite Bush’s record disapproval ratings. Yes, they do not want to seem weak on national security, but they are greatly underestimating the American people’s desire to have their civil liberties protected in this era of heightened danger.

Congressional members have far more concern with the length of their federal careers than casting the appropriate vote - rendering them impotent in the areas of war profiteering (Diane Feinstein’s husband is a defense contractor and why she still enjoys support in California, I have no idea. BTW, she vote AYE on FISA as well), criminal activity at the executive level (erasing emails, Karl Rove and Harriet Miers refusing to testify, Valerie Plame, fixing EPA reports and much, much more), reforming health care and national energy policy, policing unfair lending practices and allowing the establishment of a credit industry that works against the American people, not for them. It inexplicable that Congress has utterly failed to inhibit Bush’s harmful activities when the majority of Americans do not favor his policies in the slightest. It is frustrating and goddamned ridiculous.

So, Obama is Change personified, right?

Apparently, not so. Yes, I have read his blog on The Huffington Post regarding his FISA vote, which proffered no substantial logic for his approval of the bill. A few gems from the piece are:

Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, I’ve chosen to support the current compromise. I do so with the firm intention — once I’m sworn in as president — to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.

Democracy cannot exist without strong differences. And going forward, some of you may decide that my FISA position is a deal breaker. That’s ok. But I think it is worth pointing out that our agreement on the vast majority of issues that matter outweighs the differences we may have.

The problem with our agreement on the vast majority of issues is that his vote on the FISA bill illustrates his inherent weakness and willingness to compromise when no comprise is needed simply to prove (which he fails to do with this vote) that he is strong on national security. This “aye” was unnecessary, dangerous, wrong, hurtful and potentially, yes, a deal breaker. Especially when assessing the guts of the bill, along with those who voted against it. On The Huffpo website, David Bromwich provides a very concise, yet in-depth look at the governmental powers granted with this legislation. I strongly recommend reading the blog and the readers’ comments below.

Among the senators who opposed the vote are Biden, Boxer, Dodd, Clinton, Byrd, Durbin, Feingold, Harkin, Kerry, Leahy, Reid and Levin.

The bottom line is that political agreements with a candidate are moot if the candidate does not have the political strength or fortitude to operate in accordance with that agreement.

Of course, Obama’s folding on FISA was a political calculation - that’s practically consensus. And I wish he could offer an honest defense of his vote; but, alas, this theater of election season would lead any such candor to damage the candidate.

Obama will be elected president barring any unforeseen, intensely damaging and highly unlikely circumstances. Though the media portrays the presidential race as close - it is a facade. McCain’s chances of succeeding in November, in my opinion, are around 1 in 5. Incumbent parties do not win when the economy is in the tank - mentally or not (and it’s not mental, Phil, when milk, bread, cereal, gas and all other necessities are more and more expensive and the dollar is weaker and weaker). McCain is not galvanizing and voter trust of most election issues points toward Obama. I wish Obama the best and will be hopeful as he takes his oath of office.

Furthermore, I applaud Obama’s willingness to work across the aisle and understand there will be areas in which he will break with Liberals. Support of faith-based community initiatives, for one (and this coming from an agnostic).

The FISA Act, however, is so detrimental to democracy itself, my respect for not just Obama himself, but the very idea of Obama has been irreparably damaged. I would encourage hardcore Obama supporters to keep this particular vote of his in mind when daydreaming of the days to come as he takes on the heavy mantle of President of the United States of America. Perfection at this level does not exist and any romance with a candidate will certainly abate over time.

I would never cast a vote for McFlip-Flop, nor would I ever stay home and waste a voting opportunity. Also, I am a thorough, complete supporter of a multi-party system. While I wanted to vote for Obama - and was excited to vote for him - my decision was not cast in stone. It still is not cemented. However, the odds I would pull the lever in support of him this November are greatly diminished. Truthfully, I am ever more looking in Nader’s direction.

If Obama’s political contributions continue to decline, I encourage him to address his FISA ‘08 support with increased seriousness. This is no small issue for those of us who follow politics and government activity.

This weekend, I plan on purchasing Obama’s two books and will begin reading them with a large grain of salt. Perhaps this will allow me some insight behind this recent mind-boggling decision of his.

As of this point, Obama is not Hope and he is not Change We Can Believe In. He is merely Better Than Bush, but isn’t everybody else?

Freaky Friday: John Edwards & Karl Rove to Debate

Did anyone catch this last Friday? The Buffalo News has learned that the University of Buffalo intends to include in its Distinguished Speaker Series a debate between John Edwards and Karl Rove on September 26. John Edwards and Karl Rove. Naturally, my mind immediately searches for the nearest comparison to such an unpredictable and unlikely competition of the minds (I use that term loosely).

The fastest duo to surface is, of course, Dopey vs. Beelzebub. But that’s too easy. I’m looking for something more nuanced. More apropos. Barbie vs. Cobra Commander? No…. Nemo vs. Ursula? No…. Luke Sykwalker vs. Jabba the Hutt? No! Not even close. John Edwards has no Force.

Gumby vs. Squealer from Animal Farm. That’s it.

Yes, I remember that John Edwards is a former trial attorney, but the images of him getting smoked by Dick Cheney in 2004 are seared into my brain. And while Karl Rove may have the morality of a dung beetle, his ability to misrepresent facts with a straight face is supernatural and would require Edwards to acquire an encyclopedic knowledge of politically-related statistics and their sources to properly refute Rove’s machinations. My not-so-amateur prediction is that John ain’t got the stuff. And I’m being kind.

If the debate is televised, I will certainly perform the masochistic duty of viewing the event - with a fist firmly planted between my teeth. Naturally, I try to avoid having Rove’s visage offend my home from the television and relegate my involvement with him by reading his erroneous comments online. Blech.

In the meantime, I’m going to entertain myself with paint.net and make fun graphics with hopeful themes.

john edwards crushes rove's head

I made Rove’s eyes red, but they may be too small to tell.

And did you see the headline on The Huffington Post this morning that Rep. Henry Waxman is considering legislation that would prevent a White House employee from being paid by taxpayer money to work on political affairs? He might wait until Obama is elected to launch this legislative attempt.

I’m encouraged by the possibility that Obama will roll back a number of powers Bush and Cheney concentrated at the executive level. McCain, of course, would not. Checks and balances are so silly, aren’t they?!

And one last tidbit of morning news - let’s give Howard Wolfson a big round of applause and wish him good luck as he joins Fox News. In a way I get it - he wants to bring a democratic voice to the network. But I also think he’s selling his soul to do it. Although, he seemed comfortable bending the truth when he worked for Hillary, so maybe he’ll fit right in.

Anti-Intellectualism Half a Century Ago

History repeats itself - an oft-repeated proverb warning us that the the lessons of the past are once again the sins of today. Certainly, I found myself mentally saying a church-worthy Amen! to this proverb as I began reading the Pulitzer Prize-winning Anti-Intellectualism in American Life by Richard Hofstadter, published in 1962, 1963.

Let me just say that if this weren’t a library book, I’d be highlighting the hell out of it. Instead, I’m reduced to tearing post-it after post-it to mark all the points of interest. And I haven’t started Chapter 2. My consumption of this work is a result of research I’m conducting for my own respective book, but Hofstadter’s observations have already shocked me into open-mouth disbelief as his descriptions of the anti-intellectualism of the 1950’s readily apply to today’s culture clash between the learned and the petrified. The author does assert that anti-intellectualism suffers cyclical fluctuations and will never fully abate to the netherworlds of silly history, with other theories such as “the sun revolves around the Earth” and “the 2008 election will be between Giuliani and Hillary” (yeah, that was my own Nostradamus endeavors into electoral predictions).

So, please forgive the length of this blog as I indulge myself by providing a few (a bunch?) unusually relevant excerpts from Chapter 1, with my intensely insightful commentary to follow.

…the launching of Sputnik by the Soviets precipitated one of those periodic surges of self-conscious national reappraisal to which the American public is prone. The Sputnik was more than a shock to American national vanity: it brought an immense amount of attention to bear on the consequences of anti-intellectualism in the school sysytem and in American life at large. Suddenly, the national distaste for intellect appeared to be not just a disgrace but a hazard to survival. Pg 4-5.

Perhaps I’m overreaching in my cocoon of progressive political theory, but I view global warming and the rise in fuel prices as the space race of our day. Before you emit a Moe-esqe, “Whaaaa?”, allow me to explain. While there are untold quantities of hydrocarbon beneath the surface of the Earth in not only the U.S., but also Iran, Russia, the South China Sea and other areas, global energy demands - especially of India and China - are helping fuel the rise petrol prices and will continue to do so.

The U.S. must focus on a transcendent energy policy today in the same manner we did with the space race in the ’60’s. Scientific ambitions aiming at a forward-thinking fuel-efficiency and alternative-energy development will help the U.S. maintain a technological and, thus, economic advantage in global markets. If we can me be a maverick in this area, we just might hold on to our hegemony a bit longer - though that need not be the main goal. We need to ride the wave of motivation high gas prices are providing toward cleaner energy and end our reign as Pollution Bastards of the World (especially as China will pick up the slack and more).

The labels of Intellectuals and Anti-Intellectuals were thrown around in the 1950’s in much the same way Liberal and Conservative are today. They were used as bad words by those who hurled them against their opponents and worn as badges of honor by those they described. Obviously, Hofstadter was an intellectual and the examples of anti-intellectual rhetoric he presents are laughable in this day and age - hopefully in the same manner Creationism and Intelligent Design will be laughable in another half century. If you haven’t chuckled today, allow me to send some historical fodder from Anti-Intellectualim your way that will surely entertain:

Novelist “of the right-wing persuasion,” Louis Broomfield, pg 9:

Egghead (euphemism for intellectual): A person of spurious intellectual pretensions…Fundamentally superficial. Over emotional and feminine in reactions to any problem. Supercilious and surfeited with conceit and contempt for the experience of more sound and able men. Essentially confused in thought and immersed in mixture of sentimentality and violent evangelism…

President Eisenhower’s definition of an intellectual, pg. 10:

…a man who takes more words than are necessary to tell more than he knows.

The disdain for intellectualism opened education and the education system itself up for the attacks from the more conservative commentators of the day as well.

Billy Graham, pg 15:

You can stick a public school and a university in the middle of every block of every city in America and you will never keep America from rotting morally by mere intellectual education.

[In place of the Bible] we substituted reason, rationalism, mind culture, science worship, the working power of government, Freudianism, humanism, behaviorism, positivism, materialism, and idealism. [This work of ] so-called intellectuals. Thousands of these ‘intellectuals’ have publicly stated that morality is relative–that there is no norm or absolute standard…

Arthur Bestor, junior-high school principal in Illinois, pg. 17:

When we come to the realization that not every child has to read, figure, write and spell . . . that many of them either cannot or will not master these chores . . . then we shall be on the road to improving the junior high curriculum.

(This is the best part) Between this day and that a lot of selling must take place. But it’s coming. We shall some day accept the thought that it is just as illogical to assume that every boy must be able to read as it is that each one must be able to perform on a violin, that it is no more reasonable to require that each girl shall spell well than it is that each one shall bake a good cherry pie.

I’ve never made a cherry pie, but I can make a mean cherry cobbler. Does that count?

Jack Schwartzman, of the Freeman, pg. 13:

Our universities are the training grounds for the barbarians of the future, those who, in the guise of learning , shall come forth loaded with pitchforks of ignorance and cynicism, and stab and destroy the remnants of human civilization…

If you send your son to the college of today, you will create the Executioner of tomorrow. The rebirth of idealism must come from the scattered monasteries of non-collegiate thought.

Does it get any better than that?! This quotation thoroughly tickles my funny bone because I have a close family member, who recently turned 70, who continually blames my political viewpoints on the fact that I attended “one of those liberal universities.” I had no idea the University of Texas was a cesspool of left-wing larva ready infiltrate governmental policy-making (don’t tell the frat boys!). In fact, he repeats that these “liberal colleges” are why young people tack liberal and why this world is going to hell in a handbag. I continually try to remind him that I retained nothing from college classes. Especially French.

And perhaps to close, this final quotation from Hofstadter himself that proves yet another proverb: the more things change, the more they stay the same. Pg 12 - and keep in mind, he wrote this in 1962:

Far more acute and sweeping was the hostility to intellectuals expressed on the far-right wing, a categorical folkish dislike of the educated classes and of anything respectable, established, pedigreed, or cultivated. The right-wing crusade of the 1950’s was full of heated rhetoric about ‘Harvard professors, twisted-thinking intellectuals . . . in the State Department.’

Am I the only one who feels like they’re in the Twilight Zone? George Bush thinks the jury is still out on global warming AND evolution. Hillary Clinton somehow warped into the working man’s candidate (talk about shape-shifting) and decried “experts” who opposed her gas tax holiday. Schools across the country are peppered with teachers who want to assert Intelligent Design as a scientific principle when it’s the absolute antithesis to the definition of science itself.

When will these perverted objectors realize that science, math, literature - EDUCATION - is what provided them their military weaponry, their computers, their energy capabilities, every day conveniences, “free market” dreams, and overall U.S. success and domination. It is a shame that people have to suffer when factories close and the jobs that require less education go overseas. As it is natural for species to go extinct in biological evolution and so is the case with jobs during economic evolution. Would the laid-off factor worker rather keep his job, yet amputate the very tools with which the U.S. retains its global position and military domination? Well, that would be unpatriotic.

Anti-Intellectualism is an embarrassment that has enjoyed many a decade hindering the development of humanity. For some inexplicable reason, Americans tend to wallow in more than their fair share. I suppose fear of change and development is at the heart of the matter, though it is hard for me to reconcile the “Great American Dream” with this entrenched detestation of progress and reason.

I do, however, think we’ve come a long way since Hofstadter penned his academic opinions. College education is ever more the norm and I’m sure 50 years from now we’ll laugh at the crazy old people who didn’t want the gays to marry and thought someone having a college education was a clear indication of an elitist in their midst. And I appreciated a sentiment by James Carville (who has stoked some of my ire during the current primary season) who said on AC 360 the other evening, “Competence is patriotic.” Well, halle-freaking-lujah.

I can tell I’m really going to enjoy the rest of this book. In the meantime, let’s get-to on those alternative energy sources!!

How Obama Can Beat McCain I: Use McCain’s Words Against Him

I have never been involved in a political campaign other than my successful run for National Junior Honor Society President and my unsuccessful shot at National Honor Society President.

Inside the Campaign?

I imagine it cannot be far from living in the eye of a hurricane 24/7, the unpredictability of embarrassing revelations or gaffes, the threat of darkening skies always looming off the horizon and the ethereal moments of clarified victory when poll numbers are favorable. The tantalizing possibilities behind voter psychology, the sea of wadded paper full of unrealized brainstorm sketches, unending analysis of electoral demographics, passionate debates, cultish ideology, coffee and Redbull, pizza and deli sandwiches, and the numbers - always the numbers. I saw War Room. I know what’s up.

Having a government degree, I’m sure I romanticize the goings on in a campaign headquarters and have considered applying my efforts to local organizations. Being in Texas, however, I’ve never quite found that candidate I could wholly support and the thought of working at a phone bank does not hit me in the sweet spot. Furthermore, I’m probably one of the least diplomatic people I know and would have a hard time maintaining that vaseline-required smile when speaking with dissenters.

So, I maintain my safe, self-indulged distance while I write commentary and opinion and shout at the television when necessary - which is a lot under the current circumstances. And I’m convinced, that an outsider’s opinion (including other outsiders, not just moi) could be a valuable asset were campaign strategists inclined to listen. The whole forest for the trees argument is applicable.

2004

I wanted to rip somebody’s arm off in 2004 when nary a Democratic ad used footage of Bush’s 2000 campaign promises - the majority of which the man reneged on, becoming the disastrous tragedy we now have before us. Need I remind anyone of the 1992 stroke of genius when Democratic strategists replayed “No New Taxes” over and over again? If speech writers comb through the archeology of presidential oratory for inspiration, why didn’t the 2004 strategists use the triumphant advertising maneuvers of yesteryear? I still believe W. could have been a one-termer had his broken campaign promises been used against him.

McCain

Now Obama must turn his focus to McCain. This should be an easy one, though no one on the inside can take anything for granted, lest they find themselves confetti-free November 5. I hate negative advertising, which normally doesn’t work on educated voters, so McCain is the gift that keeps on giving because the man has already produced a library of gaffes this primary season and there’s no end in sight. Now, I’m not sure where the boundaries are, but I think ads that simply use the candidate’s words (albeit, against him) are not necessarily negative enough to turn off voters.

Here’s a recount of a few verbal missteps of McCain:

• He asserted May 29 that American troop levels in Iraq had been reduced to pre-surge levels.
• Last month, he insisted to Joe Klein that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the leader of Iran.
• McCain claimed last year there were parts of neighborhoods in Baghdad where “you and I” could go for a walk - even though his walk was guarded by 100 soldiers, 3 Blackhawks and 2 Apache gunships.
• Humorously, on June 2, McCain said he will win in January, kinda forgetting the election and, thus, potential victory, occurs in November. The 5th, to be exact.
• He’s forever mistaking Sunni/Shiite and Iran/Al Qaeda.

His gaffes, while funny and likely effective should they be played on a loop closer to the election, do not compare in seriousness to his policy flip-flops, which are also quite numerous:

• Ethanol
• Tax Cuts
• Abortion
• Talking w/ Hamas
• Religious Right
• Immigration
• Torture
• English as the Official Language
• U.S. troops in Iraq 100 years
• Warrantless Wiretapping
• Social Security
• Foreclosure Crisis
• Ethics Reform

Now, I’m not good at math, but I think - I think that’s more flip-flops than I can count on two hands. McCain makes Romney look like a party-line loyalist.

It’s quite possible that Obama’s camp is allowing the blogging, online and YouTube universe to attack McCain for him and biding time until polls dictate the right moment to release the marketing big guns. Needless to say, McCain’s own words can easily cost him the election and should be used against him relentlessly.

McCain’s folks are already taking note of the hard times these flip-flops will bring. I haven’t heard his campaign use the term “Straight Talk Express” in a while, but that’s most likely because it’s being used against him:

• Double Talk Express
• McCain Straight Talk Express Loses Some Wheels
• Straight Talk Express Derailed?
• Straight Talk Express Stalls
• Not-So Straight Talk Express
• Straight Talk Express Takes Scenic Route to the Truth (Ann Coulter, by the way)
• Less-Than-Straight Talk Express
• “McCain’s ‘Green Straight Talk Express’ is actually the ‘Black Energy Twisted Action Delay Machine’” (personal fave)
• Straight Talk Express Veers into Mud
• McCain’s Straight Talk Express Takes Every Fork In The Road?
• No Free Rides on the Straight Talk Express
• Straight Talk Express blows a tire in Baton Rouge
• McCain’s Straight Talk Express Hits the Gravy Train
• Detours on the ‘Straight Talk Express’

Wow. The longer this blog goes on, the more I think, Obama - you sit this one out, we’ll take care of McCain.

I’m not saying this campaign is in the bag. Not at all. Crazy things happen in an election cycle and Obama has to be vigilant (ahem, guns-and-religion) while presenting a sincere and honest resume to the American people.

Yes, the Willie Horton ads are coming. In fact, the strategist behind the Swift Boat ads, Chris Lacivita, has already indicated he’s out for blood, saying, “We will attack Obama viciously on all fair issues, whether they are national security, whether they are taxes or the economy.”

But the Obama camp has to keep in mind: 1. The Rush Limbaugh zombies and the evangelical vote McCain is losing could cancel out any underlying racists and the bitter Hillary voters Obama could lose, 2. Democrats turned out in droves during the primaries to vote and will do so even more in the general, 3. The incumbent party has not won in recent history when the economy is in a recession, 4. Bush is an anathema across the country and McCain differs from him by about .0045 degrees.

When countering McCain, Obama should stick to the issues. Despite McCain’s questionable personal history (there’s a lot of meat there), do not launch personal attacks. Do not issue advertisements with some deep-throated, long-time smoker narrator hurling accusations at McCain and making me want to take a two-hour shower after each viewing. His camp ran an ad here in Texas with a guitar riff that was just amazing. I certainly didn’t mind seeing it over and over and over would suggest replaying it during the general. I can’t find it on Youtube, though, which really bites.

If Obama can stay positive, stay on message and build his credibility with voters by delivering specific solutions (specific being the operative word here), McCain’s words alone will do him in and the Obama camp should allow them to do so. Never has one candidate in history had so much video of his many 180’s, reneges, retreats, reversals and turnabouts. It’s a campaign goldmine.

Democrats, there should really be no excuse for a loss this year. Unless a freak, unpredictable political meteorite of untold proportions manages to sabotage this election, Obama should take this thing home handily. If it even looks questionable or like it’s slipping away, an unleashing of McCain flip-flop videos in torrential volumes will at least encourage Republicans to stay home rather than vote for a dishonorable liar. That’s right. I said it.

There’s a lot at stake here. This is the most significant election in modern history and it is of the utmost import that McCain not win. Luckily, he’s been helping us make the case against him - which I, at least, will continue to do. I will be on the lookout for the next gaffe, the next flip-flop and continue to update this post each time I spot one.

It’s our time people. With the primaries over, it’s time to get focused and get smart and get organized. We have to take our hijacked government back. This is still a representative democracy and it’s time to represent!!

UPDATE:

Latest Flip-flop: Offshore Oil Drilling

Hall of Shame II: Crazy Hillary Extremists

I have reached the conclusion that any extremist on any side of the political prism is harmful to the democratic process. Once a person reaches the conclusion that their ideals are the correct ones and solidifies the certainty of their philosophy, they no longer are capable of learning. And to make good decisions, one has to learn and be informed on a continual basis. A person incapable of learning, questioning or investigating has a paralyzed mentality and should excuse themselves from the participatory stage of elections and governing.

FRINGE ELEMENT

And every candidate, every party, every philosophy has their crazies. Whether they are Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Michael Savage OR the Ron Paul Nutters OR self-immolating monks OR rawtarians OR the Elvis Lives Fan Club, there are groups of people who have skirted the limitations of reason and become what we call “The Fringe Element.” Obama has them, too. In the footage of his rallies, you can spot those wily-eyed supporters who see nothing objectionable, offer no criticism and refuse to view the Democratic nominee through the lens of reality. They, however, never threatened to abandon the Democratic party if he did not receive the nomination.

And this is where we address another “Fringe Element” garnering media attention. A man named Ed Hale has launched a website, hcsfjm.com, which apparently represents The National Organization of Hillary Clinton Supporters for John McCain. He essentially wants to unify people who would do their utmost to keep Obama from reaching the White House. Hale claims to be “one of them bible thumping, gun toting red necks and dam [sic] proud of it” who wants his grandchildren to be free from the fear of being killed by a terrorist. Apparently, if Obama is elected, at the very least, our fear of a terrorist attack would skyrocket because his version of security would create another Baghdad here in the USA. Compelling, I know.

Now, I must suspect that Ed - who is a lifelong Democrat - is actually from that demographic element I wrote of in an earlier blog who is a remnant from the days before Democrats and Republicans swapped demographics. We have many of them here in Texas and they are a reason the Oklahoman governor is a Democrat. These are people who are fundamentally conservative and tend to vote Republican, but their pappy was a Democrat and their grandpappy was a Democrat and their grandpappy’s grandpappy was a Democrat, so they’re a Democrat, too.

Ed is also one of those petrified “fringe element” types. Non-negotiable. Security over liberty. Political promises over character and judgment. I support him in his swap to the McCain camp because he agrees with McCain’s politics more than Obama’s. I get it. Not really a big loss for us true lefties and probably should have been a Republican in the first place if he was more concerned with political philosophy than party loyalty and straight-ticket voting.

REVENGE VOTERS

However, there are many Hillary supporters who are promising to vote for McCain over Obama, not because of political philosophy, but for revenge. They want to see a 2008 McCain victory because they are sure Hillary would run again and win in 2012. These people should be shot.

Exhibit A: In this video, you will see a gay man on the far right, in a brown shirt with a turquoise Hillary signature.

***Currently having technical difficulties embedding the videos.

To view the first one, click here.

He was behind her at the Kentucky victory rally as well:

To view the second one here.

He was also interviewed on the Daily Show episode, which aired June 4, in which he told Aasif Mandvi that he is as gay as the day is long and he’s voting for McCain.

These are not people who disagree fundamentally with Obama, but are simply the sorest of losers. They turned a blind eye to Clinton’s slash-and-burn, flawed campaign which gave Obama a fair and square victory (Michigan and Florida seated or not) and they were not rewarded. Nor should they have been.

Now, they are willing to continue sending our troops to an unnecessary death in Iraq, they are willing to allow our government to continue using warrantless wiretaps, make tax cuts for the wealthy permanent, squash the idea of universal health care and give their vote to a monumental flipflopper all in the name of political revenge.

I have no respect for these people who would allow their emotions to dominate a decision that requires the most educated and informed of all logic. Bush has proven that the election of the U.S. president has global consequences. Yet these people prioritize their selfish, self-centered demands over funds for AIDS in Africa, preventing a war of choice on Iran, the increase in unfair trade, environmental protection, and the plethora of detrimental Bush policies McCain would either continue or worsen.

They will have blood on their hands if McCain wins. When polar bears go extinct and children sew soccer balls and the situation in the Middle East continues to devolve, it will be their fault.

Suggestion to all you revenge voters: Pull your heads out of your asses. Thems the breaks. Vote Nader. Vote Bob Barr. But don’t relegate the rest of us to four more years of inanity and tragically pandemic destruction just because your girl couldn’t get her shit together and cared more about her candidacy than unity of the Democratic party - you being the prime example of her political selfishness.

People died and gave their lives for our right to vote. It is no small matter. Obama is most politically similar to Hillary than any other candidate. If you are going to use your right to vote not to express your political opinion, but rather your spite, you are a morally reprehensible being and dishonoring all those who fought for our freedoms.

And if you vote for McCain, fine, you’ll just be a loser again. How’s them apples?

Hell No Hillary for VP!!

With all this talk of the possibility of Hillary as VP, Hillary demanding to be VP, Leni Davis and Robert Johnson (as in, the founder of BET) pushing for Obama to ask her to be VP, I just have to add my two cents. I had another blog in mind for today, but this topic begs - no demands! - a response. Even Jimmy Carter, the gold-medal diplomat of our time, can’t hold his tongue behind those big, mamba jamba lips.

Barack, for the love of everything holy, do not, under any circumstances or for any reason pick Hillary as your vice presidential candidate. Don’t even do it as an olive branch under the strident assurances that she will not accept. You don’t owe it to her. You don’t owe it to her voters.

I say this knowing you won’t pick her and knowing she wouldn’t accept. But, still, let’s have a little chatty-chat, let’s ruminate and ponder this little political gem that has all the pundit gums flapping.

Again, you don’t owe it her. In fact, she doesn’t even deserve the consideration - for more reasons than just the fact she’s being self-righteous even in loss. I’m going to tell my future children tales of her as an example of how not to comport yourself. “There once was this cackly old lady with a blond mullet who wanted to be a dictator, but - alas, she was born in a land of democracy. She claimed to want to save the children of the world and give them lollipops. But, there were these other adults who thought it would be better to give the children tootsie rolls. So she tried to poison the other adults with her pottymouth! Still, they were smarter than she was and erected a forcefield of cleverness called Change and Hope. People liked the other adults more, so the bad lady was mad and said mean things about speeches. She tried to cheat and even say everyone liked her more! It was a shameful lie in the light of day and, finally, the bad mullet lady was shunned to the gaol of no respect. It was the greatest and worst political theater of all time that threatened democratic possibilities in the most dire of circumstances. It’s why mommy has gray hair and a bad liver.”

Yeah, I’m the next Dr. Seuss. Moving on:

Hillary’s 18 million voters are not all die-hard women. First of all, it irks me to hear over and over again that women are one of her solid demographic supporters. I would urge commentators to specify OLD women as one of her solid demographics. Us young females are not. We’re happy to hold the exit door open for her, if you know what I mean. Also, while many voted for her, I submit that the majority have already embraced the Obama nomination. In other words, all this talk of her “assets” is so much like the Bush talk of “political capital.” It’s bullshit. Time heals all wounds and after everyone hears the policies of McFlipFlop, as well as his terrible speeches (which sound like he’s reading from a cereal box), as well as the debates, they will vote for Obama. As gas, milk and bread prices continue to shock, Hillary’s voters will abandon their little islands of bitterness and head for the mainland of political common sense.

She does not wield this power of the masses that is paramount to an Obama win in November. I disagree with the premise entirely. Her voters are not simple, mindless zombie followers. They’re democrats and most of them are reasonable.

Other reasons:

• She has expressed McCain is a better candidate for president than Obama. Won’t it be lovely to see the RNC play that clip over and over during the general campaign if he picks her?
• Governing with her would be pure hell. There’s a reason Spitzer chose blind ole adulterer Patterson as his lieutenant. You want the VP to be beneficial, but not powerful. (Remember, the Bush/Cheney dynamic is an anomaly)
• Worse than Bill as First Gentleman or whatever, would be Bill as Second Gentleman. Then he would really feel free to grab as much poon around NY and DC as the viagra popper can handle - while simultaneously lecturing on policy. Just look at the man.

I could go on and on, but really, he’s not going to pick her. Caroline Kennedy-Schlossberg is on the committee to help chose the VP nominees and she’ll help Obama make the best decision.

Last comment reserved for Joan Walsh: You should be labeled “Clinton supporter” when you choose to air your opinions on television. Your commentary is one-sided as you see what you wish rather than assessing events as they are. It’s not a big deal. We all do that. But call a spade a spade. Your analysis is biased and should be labeled as such. Plus, quit tilting your head when you speak and getting all pissy when people disagree with you. It’s annoying.

Touchdown! Barack Obama Named Democratic Nominee

Jeeeeeeez. Sigh. Phew.

I think the gloriousness in my emotion is more directed at the fact that Hillary lost than that Barack won, in all truth. Most of my blogs on this issue have focused on her lacking rather than his qualities. I’m sure she won’t go quietly into the night but at least I’m not having heart palpitations with the intruding thought that the presidential contest will be between Hillary and McFlipflop. It’s a good night with a sentiment that will pass quickly as the real mudwrestling begins.

That being said, Obama still has not earned my vote. Now that he has clenched the nomination, it’s time to read up on his books - my mom said she received a right-wing email today that included shockingly racist quotations from his books. I told her to forward it to me so I can check it out, but I’m not holding my breath.

Another consideration upon which I now must focus is how strident Republican support and participation is this election and if it’s cemented that Texas will go red in November. Everyone I know says something different and I don’t even want to hope that TX can change gears. Remember, high gas prices are a GOOD thing here.

So, my preliminary thoughts are: if it’s close here in TX, I’ll vote Obama. If it’s not, I’ll vote Nader - which will really be a vote in support of the multi-party system. Only time will tell and with a primary season so cattywampus, who the hell knows what’s going to happen in the general?!

Used paperback copies of The Audacity of Hope are only $7.89 on Amazon right now. Score.

Puerto Rico Primary

In celebration of Hillary Clinton’s predictable win in Puerto Rico, I thought I’d remind everyone that Puerto Rico and Guam do not actually vote in the U.S. general election.

So, when Hillary Clinton tortures us with repeated, constant, never-ending claims that she won the popular vote, let’s take into account that Puerto Rico and Guam’s electorates matter not AND she’s discounting Obama’s caucus votes AND she’s counting Michigan, which is ludicrous because he wasn’t even on the ballot.

So, congratulations, Hillary. You still suck.

Reaction to DNC Rules Committee Meeting

Damn.

That was AWESOME! They should televise all these political committee meetings. Especially so we voters can see first-hand when we’re getting screwed. This time, however, I thought the DNC Rules Committee did a good job with the task they were given. Hell, it was better than the Super bowl for us political junkies.

Michigan/New Hampshire Squabble

Let me say first I learned an extremely important historical fact that altered my opinion of the Michigan Primary leapfrog and I wish I had known it sooner. Senator Levin, speaking on behalf of Michigan explained that back in 2004, the DNC Rules Committee decided that New Hampshire would go third in the primary schedule and the second spot would rotate among the states. According to Levin, New Hampshire decided they would not abide by these rules, as you can view here, and scheduled their primary in the second primary position. From what I have researched, in 2006, the DNC Rules Committee recommended New Hampshire hold their primary January 22, 2008 and Nevada take the number 2 spot by holding their caucus January 19. Obviously, New Hampshire decided it did not have to follow DNC recommendations and did whatever their politically privileged little hearts desired.

This is extremely important. New Hampshire received a waiver from the DNC and was allowed to sidestep the “rules” - which angered Michigan who then opted to advance their primary anyway. Well, obviously, with the machine politics that somehow inserts itself into our system and poisons the well of sincere democracy, the DNC - probably not wanting to encourage primary scheduling chaos - refused an egalitarian solution to the issue and banished Michigan to the netherworld of irrelevancy whilst grabbing their ankles and giving spoiled little New Hampshire their second place lest Concord pitch a grand mal and thrust the party into primary warfare that could allow the Republicans to ride the wave back into the White House.

Got it? Didn’t think so. It’s all very tawdry and shameful and undemocratic - which is what you get when you refuse to support a viable multi-party system and cede our government to big-government Democrats or Corporatocracy-Republicans.

In any case, I found myself having much more sympathy with Michigan today than I did yesterday. However, I still agree with the punishments meted out by the DNC Rules Committee to Michigan and Florida because one simply cannot have states running around willy-nilly, flotsam-jetsam setting their primaries whenever they may.

Primary Scheduling

Obviously, someone needs to be the voice of reason in this whole clusterf*#k and I kindly offer myself up for such a position - even though I am not a Democrat (I research all candidates and tend to vote all over the place and am, therefore, Independent).

1. Move all primaries back to March. It is ridiculous to have the primaries sneaking up every election season, lengthening the campaign season and wasting hundreds of millions of dollars when people should be saving for their retirement or their children’s college educations rather than donating to lost-cause campaigns. Some of you may think the Democrat Party would do themselves a disservice by moving their primaries back and allowing the Republicans to hold their primaries first. I disagree. Without doubt, this prolonged Democratic primary season has kept John McCain largely on the second-page of the news cycle. This would continue to happen as coverage follows the Democratic primaries, the lone Republican candidate is forgotten. Yay.

2. Rotate the schedule among the states so that each year, states take a different place of influence on the calendar. To give Iowa and New Hampshire the position of privilege every year is at most undemocratic and at the least illogical and beyond reason.

3. All primaries must be primaries. None of the caucus bullscheiβe! Old people, people who are working, etc. cannot attend caucuses and cannot have their voices heard through their presence. Either have a mail-in vote (sketchy) or have an ID-required vote. That is the best way to ensure democracy is actual and we are not hypocritical in our claim of having the best electoral system (although, we are anyway because of the presence of the electoral college).

Basic Reaction to the DNC Rules Committee Meeting Itself

Allow me to preface this section by saying that due to the Saturday designation of the meeting, I missed all that happened before 11:30 a.m. and didn’t catch any of the debate regarding the Florida situation. I heard it was good, though. Also, because they came back so late from lunch and I ate a huge one myself, I missed a bit of the debate before the Florida vote. Whatever.

Best line of the day: Carl Levin quoting Will Rogers, “I belong to no organized party. I’m a Democrat.” Hear! Hear! Well said.

Former Michigan Governor Blanchard, when addressing the rules committee on behalf of Sen. Clinton, was way annoying in his intro. I mean, here they are trying to decide how naughty Michigan was and he has to take up all this time talking about how he was raised by a single mother. What???? Exit stage left, guv. jeez.

Michigan and Florida peeps keep claiming the voters have been punished enough. How have they been punished? By having national media attention heaped on the ineptitude of their states’ party leadership? Give me a break. Now, if they had each been tasered when they entered the voting booth, we could talk about how they’ve been punished. Politically, I would equate the last four months as a day at the spa for those leap-froggers.

Um…Can anyone tell me why there aren’t young people on the rules committee? Yeah, yeah, I saw a few members that were probably in their 40’s. But, I’m 30, so 40 is old and if they want to be appropriately representative of the U.S. demographic, there definitely needed to be more Hispanics, more Asians, and more young people, yo! I’m sure it wouldn’t be hard to find a young, deserving sprite with an intelligent opinion. For real!

Lastly, did anyone catch those Hillary protesters?! I’m embarrassed. I really am. Seriously, they were all white, female and over 50. It was ubiquitous jiggles as they raised their hands in the air and chanted “Denver! Denver!” First of all, yawn. Second of all, come up with a better slogan, like “The Committee Sucks!” or “Michigan Rules!” or, my personal favorite, “Your mother is a whore!” And, at the end, there were only about 25 of these menopausal renegades left standing at the base of the escalator shouting and watching as no one paid attention to them. Babes, you picked the wrong horse. You chose a candidate that matched your demographic rather than one with character and good judgement. Face the music and eat shit. Is that harsh? Hmmm. Somehow, I don’t care.

Really, though. Even if Clinton appeals the decision and takes it further, she will still lose. Even if hell freezes over and the DNC seats Michigan in full as the votes were cast in the primary - which they shouldn’t - she would still lose. But hey, way to divide the party and anger Democrat voters so they can’t rally around Obama the way they want. Way to distract Obama from his real task of kicking McCain’s ass. Way to place personal ambition over national progress. Way to go, Hillary. You’re hypocritical, dishonorable and, more than anything, you have a mullet. Go away. Really, just go.

Well, GREAT Saturday! One of the best Saturdays ever. They need to televise these meeting more often. It’s time for a margarita and, being from Texas, throwin some ribs on the grill! Yeeee-friggin-haw, people!

(and i don’t give a shit what my teacher-sister says, I am NOT checking my spelling on this blog. it’s party time)

Did You Know Oregon Primary is by Mail??

How awesome! They’re expecting upwards of 75 percent participation. Let that be a lesson to all you caucus-holder states!

I leave you with an ad the Hillary camp is playing in currently playing in Oregon ahead of next Tuesday’s primary.

Anti-Intellectualism Syndrome and The Growing Smart Gap

The wealth gap in America isn’t the only growing dichotomy in our melting pot of various demographic slices. An intellectual gap is asserting itself in dangerous levels as these demographic slices form battling coalitions over differing priorities. While the Internet is a fascinating equalizer, providing information and education to those who seek it, the increasing vilification of education and intellectualism is alarming. And the 2008 Election, with its record-breaking participation, has brought illustrations of the growing smart gap to the forefront of mainstream media - even if the media doesn’t understand or acknowledge exactly what they’ve got their hands on.

The most recent example of the degradation of education in America is the difference in voter groups in the Democratic Primary. We are continuously reminded that educated Americans lean more toward Obama and blue-collar (they hardly ever say “uneducated”) voters side with Clinton. In an effort to celebrate these blue-collar Americans, the media and the candidates repeatedly refer to them as “hardworking Americans” - which should seem offensive to white-collar workers who undoubtedly work just as hard whether it’s in the operating room or on the trading floor.

Obama’s opponents readily reach for the “elitist” attack, however, simply because educated voters choose him more than any other candidate. How ridiculous. How backwards. How indicative of the anti-intellectualism that seems pervasive even in our most top levels of government.

It is not far-fetched to assume that educated voters are more informed, know more about current events, and are more familiar with the global effects of our national decisions and, thus, can apply critical analysis - even in the voting booth - better than their uneducated counterparts. This is not to say that a college-educated voter will always make a better decision than an uneducated voter. Intellectualism has more to do with the seeking of knowledge than the attaining of a piece of paper in the form of a degree. Smarter, more educated decisions, however, lead to a better - even longer - life and benefit not just the educated, but society as a whole.

Hillary Clinton began to solidify a political base as she began to pander to the uneducated, as Republicans do in most of their campaigns. In a fantastic blog entitled “In Defense of Being Educated” on The Huffington Post, Robert J. Elisberg writes that Hillary Clinton thinks she should be president because her voters are less educated than those of her opponent. He’s simplifying for effect, but the message is clear. The uneducated, potentially poorer-decision making voters who have always been courted by Republicans, are being celebrated and lauded. Yes, this may just be a political tool to get ahead, but the message it sends to America is a very dangerous one indeed.

I’m reminded of the 60 Minutes Report “All Eyes On Ohio” during which Kenny Schoenholtz, a worker at the Glatfelter paper factory (which was shutting down) told Steve Kroft about Obama, “Well, I’m hearin’ he doesn’t even know the National Anthem, you know. He wouldn’t use the Holy Bible. He’s got his own beliefs, got the Muslim beliefs. Couple issues that bothers me at heart.” Now, I don’t know anyone who saw that report and were not - too put it lightly- gobsmacked by the stupidity of such a person.

Now, that may seem a harsh judgment, but it is difficult to watch as voters just like Schoenholtz are routinely courted as the Holy Grail among voting blocs. He is the perfect constituent for Republicans or Clintons, who salivate at the opportunity to use unreasoned and illogical attacks. He is the audience for Willey Horton ads and Swiftboat campaigns. He is the voter to whom it will matter that Barack Obama’s middle name is Hussein. He is the voter who most likely voted for Bush a second time.

Why is he this type of voter? Because he is uneducated.

The pat-on-the-back for those who opted out of higher education or choose not to seek information and enlightenment will have grievous results beyond the quality of our elected leaders. With the diminishing appreciation of education - specifically science and math (largely due to religious fundamentalism) - the U.S. will continue to lose its stronghold as hegemonic power and falter economically, technologically and culturally. I recommend reading Susan Jacoby’s “The Dumbing of America” on The Washington Post for further statistics and examples of our rapid intellectual back-sliding. Jacoby has also recently written published “The Age of American Unreason“.

As the media and political parties request audience with uneducated voters using sugar-coated labels of importance, one must remember that lack of education and information encourage crime, teenage pregnancy, poverty, obesity, disease and more. Autocratic regimes and dictatorships prevent instruments of knowledge from reaching the masses as a tool with which to construct their oppressive governments.

I know many people who have not had access to a college education, yet are still very much intellectuals. The seeking of information, arming oneself with the ability to make enlightened decisions and the understanding of the importance of knowledge are all that is required to be intellectual.

As a nation, however, we glorify the rejecting of education to our own detriment.

There a fewer shames I can think of that the anti-intellectualism movement has produced than those presented by Nicholas D. Kristoff of The New York Times in his Op-Ed “With a Few More Brains…“:

“A 34-nation study found Americans less likely to believe in evolution than citizens of any of the countries polled except Turkey.

President Bush is also the only Western leader I know of who doesn’t believe in evolution, saying “the jury is still out.” No word on whether he believes in little green men.”

VETO: Hillary Has To Stop Saying, “If this were the Republican Primary…”

Very soon, Clinton’s role on the national political stage will diminish and we bloggers will turn our focus to the general election. How wonderful. I’ll start very, very soon.

In the meantime, while Clinton carries out her denouement, I am issuing her a MEREDITH VETO.

She must immediately stops saying, “If this were the Republican Primary, I would be the nominee.”

First of all, honey, this ain’t the Republican Primary and secondly, that’s probably one of the more asinine arguments you have used to justify your remaining presence in the Democratic contest.

Many states in the Republican Primary are winner-take-all states in which the candidate who wins the most votes in the state’s contest is awarded all the state’s delegates at the Republican Convention.

This system seems less democratic than proportional delegate allotment and reeks of back-room political machine negotiation so common at the state level. It’s as undemocratic as awarding all electoral college votes to the winner of the state instead of either awarding them proportionally or simply nominating the president based on - wait for it…wait for it… - popular vote. What a concept!! So novel! So original!

In any case, Hillary. The Democratic Primary is not set on winner-take-all system, nor should it be. And, for that reason, I suggest you halt your childish nanny-nanny-boo-boo, “If this were the Republican Primary” bullshit. It gives you no credibility, makes democrat voters think you prefer the Republican way, and adds to your air of bitterness and desperation. Just like that letter you wrote to Obama’s campaign about Florida and Michigan. Cheezus, what were you thinking? Somebody needs to send Ed Rendell and Rahm Emanuel and Larry King and Nelson Mandela to go have a come-to-jesus with that woman and her rascally husband.

Hillary Is The New Huckabee

Doesn’t it seem like eons ago that we were (perhaps I should say “I was”) thinking what a tool Huckabee was for staying in the Republican Primary when it was clear McCain was going to bring it home? Speculative theories were tossed around among those of us without television careers as to what could possibly motivate such a political buffoon to stay in a race he had so handily lost. My Republican associates (ahem, family members) conjectured that a continued Republican contest would keep them in the news and relevant as the battle between Obama and Hillary threatened to eclipse their party’s attempt to retain The White House.

Personally, I felt Huckabee was simply a media whore trying to ensure he had a post-election spotlight to bask in once his ridiculous run for leader of the free world (can we even call the president that anymore?) was over. I still think this is the case.

Moving on. We now have another candidate who has cement ear plugs and is shouting inanity about electability to drown out the fat lady’s aria, “Reality.” Granted, I suspect Hillary is staying in the race until May 20, when Oregon and Kentucky hold their primaries. She’ll have won West Virginia (May 13), satiating her political ego enough to leave while declaring victory. It’s still fun to see her practice one of her best skills, lying, as she continues to claim her intentions to be the president. Eating crow is certainly not her strong suit and I doubt she’ll sidle up to the table and order a serving. It’s all very delicious to watch.

As the superdelegates slowly meander over to Obama’s side, I’m reminded of the childhood game Kick the Can (was this only played in the South? If you don’t know what it is, you can visit the Wiki entry on it). The supers don’t want to get too much attention and risk maddening their electorate or alienating their colleagues, so they bide their time, hide in the shadows and - just when it’s safe, when no one’s watching - BAM! They sprint to the Obama can, giving it a swift punt and saving themselves from the evil nighttime troll of political regret.

The next two weeks will be fun. More fun than if she just packed up after Indiana/North Carolina. I’ll relish watching the charade, hearing criticisms of her continued candidacy and punditry ponderings of her campaign loans and losing the primary just as she had begun to truly resonate as a candidate (by mimicking George Bush). It’s almost a reward for those of us who feel an almost-desperation to have the Republicans banished, ending their ruinous rule, and yet have to sit powerless in front of the spectacle of Democratic cannibalism.

I will repeat, potentially for the last time, I never took issue with Hillary remaining in the race. I took issue with her praising McCain over Obama and the unwarranted attacks she and her husband lobbed for the sake of ambition. Well, the stakes are too high this year to put up with such divisive tactics. And political karma, for once in a long while, is rearing its necessary head and decapitating the deserving. So now, that’s all Hillary is. A chicken with its head cut off. Just like Huckabee was a couple months ago. Ain’t life grand?