Amid CNN's coverage of the primaries there were various breaks with analysts and special guests. One of these guests was the eminent governor from the state of New Jersey, whose name I can't recall and wouldn't want to anyway.
New Jersey was seen as something of an unknown quantity to the democrats. Nobody had any clue which way the state was leaning. Preliminary polls had Senators Clinton and Obama at nearly equal. So, the powers that be invited this poor governor, a delegate from New Jersey, to come on the show and shed some light on the situation.
The interviewer asked governor "Jersey" which way he believed his state was leaning. The gov. replied that he'd already committed his support to Sen. Clinton. Then the interviewer asked, "What if your state's citizens choose to majority-support Sen. Obama?"
A dicey question indeed. What does a delegate do when they've already committed to a candidate and their constituents end up voting otherwise? Luckily, this scenario didn't play out, and Senator Clinton carried the state, albeit by a fairly small margin.
In any case, governor Jersey replied to the interviewer, "We intend to honor our commitments...New Jersey will do right by Hillary Clinton".
So, in the political tumult of the Garden State, by means of an innocent interview, the most horrific crime against our system of government was nearly enacted by the most public of parties. The worst fears of our founding fathers were on the table, and everyone remained as silent as a sack of churchmice tossed overboard.
This is the most terrifying of flaws in the Electoral College - that the people speak and are ignored.
Webster's would define this as a condition known as "tyranny".
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Sunday, January 27, 2008
Foreign Policy Under Mrs. President
There is a rumbling around the offices and water-coolers of America. Suddenly, people who have no prior knowledge of international affairs have become experts in foreign policy. They can tell you, with certainty, that the world is unprepared for a female American leader.
The general consensus is that we will receive less respect internationally and will become targets of further terrorist assault if we elect a female leader. There is also the concern that Hillary will rule "with her heart, not her head." According to the vast majority of the nation's leading boneheads and crumbums, the country will begin making its last swirls around the toilet bowl just as soon as Hillary takes her inaugural vows.
Nevermind that, if elected, Hillary could strike a vital and perhaps final blow for the ongoing women's equality movement, both domestically and abroad. But of course, we are all VERY aware of the upsides of having a woman president since it's been discussed for the past 150 years in this country. There have been no less than 58 female candidates for president, beginning in 1870, none of whom were viewed as legitimate until Mrs. Clinton.
Not surprisingly, America is behind the times in the area of female leadership as well. Many countries have been electing female officials for years; the Phillipines, Iceland, and Ireland, for example. Some have just begun, but are still far ahead of the U.S., who is still not "completely ready" to accept a woman as a leader, according to recent polls. Even Israel and India are ahead of America in regards to women as political leaders.
So why the denial? Upon what foundation are these "water-cooler" questions being asked?
I can understand how some people would believe that the United States would be weakened by having a female leader. In terms of the commonly accepted Muslim ideals, women are viewed as WEAK, and men are STRONG. The fear here is based upon two presuppositions:
1) All Muslims seek to destroy America.
2) All of America's enemies are practicing Muslims.
Obviously, both of these ideas are founded on layers of idiocy that have been buried under even more layers of bullshit, like a moron freezer that hasn't been defrosted in two millenniums.
Despite the fact that the single most popular Muslim leader of the last century was a woman, and that Golda Meir brought peace to Israel in the early 70's, most people will continue to assume that anything from the Middle-East or anything Muslim is evil. Of course, most people also don't know the difference between Israel, Iran, and Iraq. It's just a whole mess of evil over there!
Before this turns into the next crusade, let me state that all of the men who have previously won the presidency have seemed more qualified than their female counterparts, if only in support and moral backing. The country was, literally, not ready for a woman president until now. This is an interesting and multi-layered notion. Think for a moment, if the current administration would have done a GOOD job running the country, would we have had to postpone our gender-integrated election another four years? Another eight? Would the Republican ideals - the traditional "family values" ticket - have caused a relapse in progressive thought?
In any case, the time is here. I'm not encouraging a vote for Hillary, I just believe that the truth is important. And I say if people want to vote based on gender-bias, then they should own up to it, instead of hiding behind ignorance.
The general consensus is that we will receive less respect internationally and will become targets of further terrorist assault if we elect a female leader. There is also the concern that Hillary will rule "with her heart, not her head." According to the vast majority of the nation's leading boneheads and crumbums, the country will begin making its last swirls around the toilet bowl just as soon as Hillary takes her inaugural vows.
Nevermind that, if elected, Hillary could strike a vital and perhaps final blow for the ongoing women's equality movement, both domestically and abroad. But of course, we are all VERY aware of the upsides of having a woman president since it's been discussed for the past 150 years in this country. There have been no less than 58 female candidates for president, beginning in 1870, none of whom were viewed as legitimate until Mrs. Clinton.
Not surprisingly, America is behind the times in the area of female leadership as well. Many countries have been electing female officials for years; the Phillipines, Iceland, and Ireland, for example. Some have just begun, but are still far ahead of the U.S., who is still not "completely ready" to accept a woman as a leader, according to recent polls. Even Israel and India are ahead of America in regards to women as political leaders.
So why the denial? Upon what foundation are these "water-cooler" questions being asked?
I can understand how some people would believe that the United States would be weakened by having a female leader. In terms of the commonly accepted Muslim ideals, women are viewed as WEAK, and men are STRONG. The fear here is based upon two presuppositions:
1) All Muslims seek to destroy America.
2) All of America's enemies are practicing Muslims.
Obviously, both of these ideas are founded on layers of idiocy that have been buried under even more layers of bullshit, like a moron freezer that hasn't been defrosted in two millenniums.
Despite the fact that the single most popular Muslim leader of the last century was a woman, and that Golda Meir brought peace to Israel in the early 70's, most people will continue to assume that anything from the Middle-East or anything Muslim is evil. Of course, most people also don't know the difference between Israel, Iran, and Iraq. It's just a whole mess of evil over there!
Before this turns into the next crusade, let me state that all of the men who have previously won the presidency have seemed more qualified than their female counterparts, if only in support and moral backing. The country was, literally, not ready for a woman president until now. This is an interesting and multi-layered notion. Think for a moment, if the current administration would have done a GOOD job running the country, would we have had to postpone our gender-integrated election another four years? Another eight? Would the Republican ideals - the traditional "family values" ticket - have caused a relapse in progressive thought?
In any case, the time is here. I'm not encouraging a vote for Hillary, I just believe that the truth is important. And I say if people want to vote based on gender-bias, then they should own up to it, instead of hiding behind ignorance.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
"Tonight's debate brought to you by the Congressional Black Caucus..."
As the candidates mentioned so many times, the debate was held, coincidentally, on MLK day and was coincidentally sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus (who, coincidentally, have never sponsored a debate before), on the first Monday night, coincidentally, when there was no professional football to contend with.
Hello ratings!
But while the network was cashing in on the subversive racial context of the upcoming election, the candidates did an excellent job of showcasing their most non-Martin-Luther-King-y behavior by trying, as hard as they could, to prove that the other guy was a bigger liar than they were. There were rants, raves, shouting matches - at one point I half-expected Hillary to pick up her podium and start swinging, as Barack used poor John Edwards as a human shield against the dragon's fury.
What better way to honor the great Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. than to quibble back and forth for over an hour about the congressional voting history of each candidate? Meanwhile, the average voter is at home slouched into their couch with potato chip crumbs on their shirt, drinking a beer, and wondering what the hell is going on that a black man and a white woman are arguing at all. Few voters have ANY idea what they're talking about, that to discuss particular senate votes and previous positions on vague, incomprehensible bills is absolutely insane. At least 95% of Americans don't watch CSPAN, and would have no idea if anybody was telling the truth about anything.
Meanwhile, Edwards became the empathetic front-runner as he was all but ignored for a good 15 minutes while Hillary and Barack threw dung at each other. At certain points, it seemed that Edwards took the reins from a listless Wolf Blitzer, who attempted to mediate the "debate" (which turned into more and more of a lunchroom food-fight as the minutes ticked away). Edwards decried both Hil and Bar for their mud-slinging, while using the few seconds between their tirades to once again promote his "my-life's-work-is-ending-poverty" platform.
The issue of race was brought up for the first time also, to Obama, when he was asked (basically) if blacks should feel obligated to "vote black" in the upcoming election. Obama skilfully dodged the question, saying only "black people should do what's best for them, their families, and their country". A pearl-diver couldn't get more subversive. Way to go, Barack!
We did get to see a new, annoying side of Mr. Obama, who at one point, when discussing the enforcement of a certain policy, claimed to Edwards, "First of all, it will be ME enforcing this policy in a year, as president..." Well yes, sir! I'm not sure how this cockiness will play with the chimney-and-brickhouse families in the Northeast, but the South Carolinians ate it up. Do we need a cocky president? Isn't it about time we had a president with humility? Congratulations, Sen. Obama, you've just officially lost my vote.
And now for my final thought: I recognize that the goal of these elections is to WIN, not make friends, but when the debates turn into episodes of Jerry Springer, complete with crowds woo-wooing and fist-pumping, maybe politics have taken a turn for the worse. Politicians argue and pander, and that's the way it is, but nobody likes to see these enlightened, brilliant people dredge up voting histories and issue positions in order to injure the credibility of one another. Nobody wins in that kind of election.
Thank you, once again. Take care of yourselves, and each other.
Hello ratings!
But while the network was cashing in on the subversive racial context of the upcoming election, the candidates did an excellent job of showcasing their most non-Martin-Luther-King-y behavior by trying, as hard as they could, to prove that the other guy was a bigger liar than they were. There were rants, raves, shouting matches - at one point I half-expected Hillary to pick up her podium and start swinging, as Barack used poor John Edwards as a human shield against the dragon's fury.
What better way to honor the great Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. than to quibble back and forth for over an hour about the congressional voting history of each candidate? Meanwhile, the average voter is at home slouched into their couch with potato chip crumbs on their shirt, drinking a beer, and wondering what the hell is going on that a black man and a white woman are arguing at all. Few voters have ANY idea what they're talking about, that to discuss particular senate votes and previous positions on vague, incomprehensible bills is absolutely insane. At least 95% of Americans don't watch CSPAN, and would have no idea if anybody was telling the truth about anything.
Meanwhile, Edwards became the empathetic front-runner as he was all but ignored for a good 15 minutes while Hillary and Barack threw dung at each other. At certain points, it seemed that Edwards took the reins from a listless Wolf Blitzer, who attempted to mediate the "debate" (which turned into more and more of a lunchroom food-fight as the minutes ticked away). Edwards decried both Hil and Bar for their mud-slinging, while using the few seconds between their tirades to once again promote his "my-life's-work-is-ending-poverty" platform.
The issue of race was brought up for the first time also, to Obama, when he was asked (basically) if blacks should feel obligated to "vote black" in the upcoming election. Obama skilfully dodged the question, saying only "black people should do what's best for them, their families, and their country". A pearl-diver couldn't get more subversive. Way to go, Barack!
We did get to see a new, annoying side of Mr. Obama, who at one point, when discussing the enforcement of a certain policy, claimed to Edwards, "First of all, it will be ME enforcing this policy in a year, as president..." Well yes, sir! I'm not sure how this cockiness will play with the chimney-and-brickhouse families in the Northeast, but the South Carolinians ate it up. Do we need a cocky president? Isn't it about time we had a president with humility? Congratulations, Sen. Obama, you've just officially lost my vote.
And now for my final thought: I recognize that the goal of these elections is to WIN, not make friends, but when the debates turn into episodes of Jerry Springer, complete with crowds woo-wooing and fist-pumping, maybe politics have taken a turn for the worse. Politicians argue and pander, and that's the way it is, but nobody likes to see these enlightened, brilliant people dredge up voting histories and issue positions in order to injure the credibility of one another. Nobody wins in that kind of election.
Thank you, once again. Take care of yourselves, and each other.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)