In this Discussion
- agentnumone September 2008
- beckysioux November 2008
- canoe7grape October 2008
- chancefrench11 December 2009
- darbie_starpower December 2009
- DJRose December 2009
- dollarflame6 October 2008
- jedi_grrlie September 2008
- llama0engine November 2008
- manx9shrine June 2008
- moveadvice72 September 2008
- Pearl June 2008
- QueenofthePosers June 2008
- redsusan47 November 2008
- spy9black June 2008
- Surfer Rosa January 2009
- swissfeast68 November 2008
- target35ghost August 2008
- Tempe Arizona November 2008
- thephantommilk November 2008
- tune1shade November 2008
- women60banana November 2008
Comments
That said, I'm happy that this part of the race is finally over, but I'm not about to start calling Obama my president because the next few months are going to be about a million times harder. He still has a LOT to overcome to get to the Oval Office. McCain has only been strengthened by this long battle.
Hillary as VP would be a mistake. That ticket couldn't win--she should get a position in his Cabinet, but he really does need someone (unfortunately probably a white male) from within the establishment to reach moderates and those less interested in 'radical change' who are looking for experience.
But as for Hillary, who has been vilified in the media while Obama gets dream-candidate treatment--yes, she's part of the establishment, but that IS AMERICAN POLITICS. It would never have been an issue in the past because there's never been a candidate from outside the fold. She had HUGE public support and was the first viable female candidate for President. She's not evil, and no more divisive than Obama. Nothing can ever be fixed in the US if we continue all these vitriolic statements about people on both sides. Yes, she has mispoken, but she has also received incredibly unfair treatment from the media and managed to handle it all with dignity. STOP with the hatred and anger--you're contributing to the problem instead of helping find a solution. Let it go and concentrate on the future. Wouldn't it be depressing if McCain won this election cause Dems were all too focused on hating Hillary or Obama to unite?
Generally, the divisiveness and the hatred in these campaigns are going to make it really really difficult for Obama to win now. It would DEFINITELY be better if both the Hillary and Obama parties would get over it and focus against McCain now, not against each other.
You are very obviously an Obama supporter, and Obama needs to win over Hillary's people. If you and people like you keep villifying Hilllary, that's gonna be harder for him to accomplish. So now, more than ever, it's bad for everyone to keep up the hatred and vitriolic-ness that has been the hallmark of this battle so far.
And I do think that as candidates, like Sarah said, they were equally as divisive- maybe not for the right reasons, as you pointed out, but it's still a fact and still something that needs to be recognised. It's not right, or good, but in many ways Obama is as divisive as Hillary, even if it's because of race vs. policies.
I know you don't like Hillary, heck, I don't particularly like her, but I'm not going to let my dislike distract me from the real goal, which is to get Obama as president.
Agreed 100% with both of you. I haven't been active in this discussion because honestly, I was living in France for a year and paying far more attention to the French election than what was going over here, and then when I moved back a year ago, I just didn't have the motivation to dive back into the political discussion as I had, say, four years ago.
But I agree with what Meg and Sarah have both said. The reality is that we have a very long way to go before we can start declaring Obama "Our Next President." It's an optimistic outlook, yes, but it's also a little short-sighted. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if Obama won, but I think the odds, no matter what polls or politicians are saying, are in McCain's favour. It's up to us to change that.
No, but it has a huge impact on how the rest of the world sees us, and that's pretty damn important, not to mention the thousands of Americans who live abroad and do vote in US elections.
And honestly, don't use that as an excuse to discount Sarah's opinion.
This war and this administration has hit my family in ways I don't dare to make public, but that shouldn't matter- everyone should be angry, everyone should be passionate, everyone should feel such outrage that she/he has never felt before. And yet, I am criticized for opposing Hillary Clinton.
I just can't understand how someone who
1) voted for war in Iraq
2) voted for hostility in Iran
3) announced that her administration would approach Iran with a policy of obliteration rather than diplomacy
4) openly and repeatedly criticized the idea of meeting with so-called enemies
could be so well received.
I just can't understand how anyone could look at this candidate and say, "She should be at the top of the ticket...or if not at the top, she should be a heartbeat away from it."
I am also staunch feminist. I carried around Gloria Steinem's books with me wherever I went as a kid. Because of that disposition, I do not understand how a woman who got where she is because she is "somebody's wife" (Steve Boucer, thepilot.com) could ever represent the female cause. She's no Diane Feinstein, no Nancy Pelosi, no symbol of women's lib. To call her such, to vote for her because of her gender instead of her mind, and to praise her as a pioneer (whatever happened to Shirley Chrisholm? Forgotten.) is disturbing.
To say she had more experience when in fact Obama had more senatorial experience is perturbing. To say she represents the common man more than Obama does is heart-wrenching.
These things, and all the things that have happened during this campaign season- and the events are too voluminous to list here- are not trivial matters. Since when did we live in a nation where we ought to shut up with the opinions? Since when was it wrong to look at facts and evaluate them?
And yet, I have been told, "But even if the facts you present are correct, the way you present them is very opinionated." Wherein lies the problem? What are we to do with facts, if not to use them to make decisions? Do we list the voting records and statements and policies and behaviors of the candidates and then throw all of these things away? Do we forget what the facts actually mean, what very real bearing they have on the lives of people? We make decisions by our opinions, and so we should examine the facts, and from them, make opinions that we can voice loudly and with courage.
The ironic thing is that I do, actually, have one Hillary supporter as a friend. He is extremely, extremely smart, this friend. He reads everything, listens to everything: just talking to him is overwhelming. He could trip up Tim Russert (who is now a hero of mine). Never did this friend tell me to tone down my Hillary criticisms. Rather, he loved to argue with me; he believed in truth as much as I did and he felt the weight of the election as much as I did, and believing as he did, and feeling as he did, there was no way he could accept a discussion that was less than passionate, that was "nice" or "moderate" or any of those socially acceptable characterizations. He'd argue with me loudly and firmly, and he almost always had me admitting that he had the stronger point. The facts meant everything to him. That's the dissonance of democracy, the sweetest discord in the world.
But here, I'm told to stop hating Hillary and to stop being opinionated and to acknowledge that she was mistreated by the media. I was told to tone down my criticisms when I posted during the primary season, and I was told to tone down when I gave my reasons that I did not want her as a running mate.
Alright, I understand, even though I'm not used to it: at this forum, I guess the tacit rule is to tone it down. That's fine, and I'll do it from now on, but I have to add, nothing great in history ever came from toning it down.
It's also been said here that I've been carrying on in a way that is not conducive to the general election, that I've been divisive by criticizing Hillary when describing why I didn't support her as the running mate and that I've called Obama president prematurely.
To the first point: If I didn't want Hillary as president because of her positions, then I'm not going to want her as vice-president for exactly the same reasons. I can't pretend to open my arms to her and look myself in the eye at the mirror; neither can I tone down the criticisms, for if a vote for war incited vehement outrage in me the first time, it's going to do the same the second time it comes up. In a post about Hillary as a running mate, I am going to say exactly the same things I said in a post about Hillary as presidential nominee, because the facts have not changed. To do any less, to tone it down, would mean that the issues are less urgent now, less important, require less feeling- and that's not true.
Is it divisive of me to say so vehemently that Hillary was unethical in her behaviors, statements and positions? The word "divisive" implies that I am creating some kind of impenetrable split. With my friend, however, he argued strongly and I argued strongly, and by clashing, we brought life to democracy. No quiet, toned down talk could ever embody real expression. Let's all be passionate and loud, sincere, open and honest. From that kind of market place of ideas comes true unity. Those who loved Hillary will continue to love her, and those who hated her will continue to hate her; that someone expressed one of these never created the opposite feeling in someone else- that is, such an expression is not divisive. If opinions come from facts and not gender or hairstyle, then stating those opinions could never ever be divisive. Instead, they only lead to the happy clashes of democracy, and ultimately, help discern the truth.
I suppose there really are people who love or hate Hillary because of gender or hairstyle, and for people like that, yes, opinions can be divisive. For people like that, if I said I didn't like Hillary because she is unethical, then yes, such people will cling to their love for her and swear to God that they will never share a side with me. But I don't talk to these kinds of people. I talk to people who loved Hillary for her health care mandates and her tax cuts, and now that she's not on the top of the ticket, these people will look at McCain's plan and they will look at Obama's, and they will choose Obama's. And these same people will say they want Hillary as Obama's running mate, and I will tell them that I do not, and we will argue as we did before, because the facts have not changed.
I do have to confess that at one point I was sure I would vote for McCain over Hillary. I thought this for about a week or so, until I got an email from Moveon, outlining some of McCain's positions. I then started my own research of McCain's voting record and the facts told me one thing: Hillary would be a better president than McCain- and I knew what I had to do, if I had to. Thankfully, I didn't have to, but I know that Hillary supporters- those who supported her for the facts- will go through the same process and choose Obama.
I never said I didn't want unity- I just never thought toning down opinions and closing off the criticism of Hillary was the acceptable way to get it.
As to the second thing I've been told, that I shouldn't call Obama president b.c there's still work to be done. Well, I wrote that post on the day he won the nomination- and that was a really, incredibly huge thing. I was happy.
PS: Katy, I wasn't trying to discount Sarah's opinion, or say that the world's opinion didn't matter. I was just replying that Hillary had not, in fact, been mistreated by the media as studies show, and that fact is important in showing that Obama is the legitimate nominee of the party- American voters weren't as a whole affected by media mistreatment of Hillary, even if such mistreatment occurred in Europe.
PPS: I didn't mean to, but I probably offended some people here- for that, I'm really sorry.
That's where the difference lies.
But that's kind of a moot point now.
Oh, and this too:
http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/553/1209376429107uf0.jpg
Thanks, Rosa.
Here's the article that I read: The Observer, 29.6.08
I'd like to know peoples' thoughts.
How do you feel about Obama planning to go along with the bill that would grant retroactive protection to communications groups that went along with the Bush administration's wiretaps/allow further governmental wiretapping?
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/07/n...ots-activi.html
Me? It makes me kind of sick. I can understand moving more towards "center" policies in order to actually get into office, but this is completely ridiculous and goes against everything I hoped Obama would do now that he has the nomination. He can use all the big talk he wants (calling it a "compromise" and saying that 'oh no, don't worry, unlike George Bush, I won't abuse these powers when I'm in office' is RIDICULOUS), it's still a terrible bill and something that we should be ashamed even came this far. What happened to outrage?
Can I haz fourth amendment?
How do you feel about Obama planning to go along with the bill that would grant retroactive protection to communications groups that went along with the Bush administration's wiretaps/allow further governmental wiretapping?
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/07/n...ots-activi.html
Me? It makes me kind of sick. I can understand moving more towards "center" policies in order to actually get into office, but this is completely ridiculous and goes against everything I hoped Obama would do now that he has the nomination. He can use all the big talk he wants (calling it a "compromise" and saying that 'oh no, don't worry, unlike George Bush, I won't abuse these powers when I'm in office' is RIDICULOUS), it's still a terrible bill and something that we should be ashamed even came this far. What happened to outrage?
Can I haz fourth amendment?
I'm still not voting for McCain, but, as you said, it hurts.
he's a vp nominee apparently
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/worl...icle4597173.ece
Andy, you and I were chatting once when he walked RIGHT PAST me at work! He was here to speak to the attorneys. He lives in my friend's grandparents' neighborhood and goes to their church - even sat behind them last week, LOL! Oh, and my other friend used to work in his office. This is VERY exciting for us Delawareans, I'll tell you. Almost everyone I know from here loves Biden. Those who don't are Republicans.
LOL I was thinking of you during that speech - I'm THRILLED that you liked it as much as I did, dear.
By the way - has anyone read The Audacity of Hope? I'm reading it now - it's brilliant! I love Obama even more now.
There you are, love. So you can see it for yourself.
My favorite parts:
The Republican Convention will be in the Twin Cities - how appropos that is, since you can't tell the difference between John McCain and Dubya.
No Way, No How, No McCain!
To her supporters: Were you in this for ME or were you in this for your country? We've worked too hard and come too far to see all our work go to waste under another 4 years of Republican rule.
And my ABSOLUTE favorite:
My mother was born when women did not have the right to vote. My daughter cast a vote for her mother for President.
That was so moving I almost cried.