In both Ohio and Texas, as well as RI. Which is not going to happen.
Everyone's been talking about how unfair the media have been, and how much they've favored Obama, and so on. But infact, the Clintons have been the ones who have controlled the media narrative, to the point where respectable news media are parroting the misguided theory that Hillary will mount a "comeback" or become the frontrunner again if she can win in Ohio and Texas tonight.
But even under the most liberal best-case-scenario, the math just isnt there. Imagine if the reverse had been the case, Hillary winning 11 straight contests throughout February, including reliable blue states (Maryland, DC), swing states (Wisconsin) and red states (Louisiana). And was ahead by over 150 pledged delegates. Any attempt by the Obama campaign to draw the line in the sand by claiming that Texas and Ohio would bring them back into it would be laughed off, and rightly so.
In order for Hillary to win enough delegates to catch up to Obama, she needs to win tonight and subsequent contests about 70-30, which simply isnt going to happen. And Hillary and her campaign know this. Which is why they've been trumpeting the BS idea that the media have been so unfair to them, so that any victory tonight could provide a psychological boost.
A narrow victory in both states tonight for Hillary (which is certainly very possible) provides nothing more than a reasonable justification to continue to Pennsylvania (while bypassing the states in between like Wyoming and Mississippi, where Obama has a clear advantage) which does nothing more than continue this protracted battle, which she ultimately has no chance of winning. Rearranging the deck chairs on the Hindenburg, so to speak.
I just hope Obama can win at least one of the two big states tonight and knock Mrs Clinton out once and for all.
Tuesday, March 4
Monday, February 25
Shame on you, Barack Obama
Shame on you!
Shame on you for trying to change the way politics are done in this country!
Shame on you for being a young, fresh and progressive voice for change!
Shame on you for being an eloquent speaker!
How dare you try to inspire people and appeal to the "better angels of their nature"?
Enough with the great speeches and large rallies.
Enough with the phenomenal campaign organization.
How dare you open offices and organize in obscure red states?
How dare you win important swing states like Virginia and Colorado and Missouri?
How dare you generate massive voter turnout and get young people involved?
How dare you attract so many independents?
Shame on you for raising so much money from so many small donors!
Shame on you for being against the war from the beginning even though it was politically risky!
How dare you win 11 primaries and caucuses in a row?
Let's have a debate!
Shame on you for trying to change the way politics are done in this country!
Shame on you for being a young, fresh and progressive voice for change!
Shame on you for being an eloquent speaker!
How dare you try to inspire people and appeal to the "better angels of their nature"?
Enough with the great speeches and large rallies.
Enough with the phenomenal campaign organization.
How dare you open offices and organize in obscure red states?
How dare you win important swing states like Virginia and Colorado and Missouri?
How dare you generate massive voter turnout and get young people involved?
How dare you attract so many independents?
Shame on you for raising so much money from so many small donors!
Shame on you for being against the war from the beginning even though it was politically risky!
How dare you win 11 primaries and caucuses in a row?
Let's have a debate!
Sunday, February 24
Ralph Nader....not again!
Ralph Nader announced today that he is launching another independent bid for the presidency, for what must be the fourth or fifth time now. My expected reaction would be anger and frustration (nothing sets me off more than third party spoilers, perhaps with the exception of ethnic minorities who support conservatice politics) but as I genuinely don't believe he'll sucker enough people into being a spoiler once again, I'm inclined to treat this as the slightly irritating non-story it is.
But I am angry at Ralph Nader and his inflated ego. He deserves so much credit for the work he has done to fight for the little guy for most of his career, but the blame for the last 7 years lies largely at his feet. His role in the 2000 election was a very large part in George W Bush defeating Al Gore, and the fact that he's not only unapologetic about that, but still somehow convinces himself that he was in the right, is especially grating.
Now, I am in no way against third parties. Infact, I would love to see a viable and competitive third party thats to the left of the position the Democratic Party currently occupies. I think the two-party system has serious flaws. I agree that the Democratic Party has been too timid and centrist for too long, and I believe that there is too much corporate influence even among some of the most progressive Democrats. But the way to build any politicial movement is from the bottom up, not the top down, and to launch quixotic bids for the highest office which hands the election over to the most conservative Republicans is the most self defeating thing I can think of.
Ralph Nader, over the past decade, has done nothing to build the kind of progressive movment he claims to care so much about, except to run for president every four years, ostensibly to influence the debate. He abandoned the Green Party after he had used it to help Bush steal the 2000 election from Gore, and moved to the Reform Party (which had previously nominated the likes of Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan) to launch an insipid attempt in 2004 to help Bush defeat Kerry. Bush did defeat Kerry, but he turned out not to have needed Nader's help.
Of course, anyone who is constitutionally eligible is totally entitled to run, under the banner of any political organization they see fit. However, they should also be held responsible for their the consequences of their actions. And Ralph Nader, for his failure to take any responsibility for the disastrous consequences of his deceptive and pigheaded run in 2000, should be a pariah to anyone who is even the least bit ticked at what the last 7 years have brought. Yes, Al Gore's run in 2000 was a lot more mediocre than it should have been. But if he had won, as he should have (and as he in fact did, before the Supreme Court gave it to W), there is no doubt that we wouldn't have seen the most of the mess of the last 7 years - Iraq, Katrina, corporate giveaways and abuse of the environment. And I am placing a large heap of the blame on Ralph Nader's feet.
Because Nader, with a straight face, and eloquently so, said there was no difference between Gore and Bush. Tweedledee and Tweedledum he called them. Does anyone actually think he was in anyway accurate? How could someone like Ralph Nader, who had spent his entire career battling against people like Bush, say he wasn't differentiable from Gore or Clinton? He was basically saying it was OK if Bush won, and essentially paving his way for doing so, because he was the exact same as Al Gore! Al Gore of An Inconvenient Truth. Al Gore who has won a Nobel Prize for his leadership on climate change, and has been a loud and strident critic of this administration's disastrous foreign policy and abuse of the constitution. Ralph Nader said they were one and the same. If he infact mistakenly got it so wrong, he should be consigned to the rubbish dump of history, alongside the record company that passed on the Beatles.
And then he deliberately sabotaged Gore by actively campaigning not only in crucial swing states like Florida (we all know how that turned out), but other states such as Wisconsin and Oregon, so that Gore had to spend time and resources playing defense there. And he has made no bones about accepting donations and ballot help from Republican Party PACs, who obviously are grateful to him, as they should be.
Like I said, I don't think anyone is going to be that gullible again. And I don''t even know what vacuum he thinks he is going to fill. There is a large, thriving grassroots political movement which is in no way of his making. And all of the rich white college kids who formed his political base have developed a sweet sweet taste of Obamarama. So I fully expect that his ego trip will fall flat on its face and he'll return to the political Siberia he crawled out of to make his odious campaign announcement.
But I am angry at Ralph Nader and his inflated ego. He deserves so much credit for the work he has done to fight for the little guy for most of his career, but the blame for the last 7 years lies largely at his feet. His role in the 2000 election was a very large part in George W Bush defeating Al Gore, and the fact that he's not only unapologetic about that, but still somehow convinces himself that he was in the right, is especially grating.
Now, I am in no way against third parties. Infact, I would love to see a viable and competitive third party thats to the left of the position the Democratic Party currently occupies. I think the two-party system has serious flaws. I agree that the Democratic Party has been too timid and centrist for too long, and I believe that there is too much corporate influence even among some of the most progressive Democrats. But the way to build any politicial movement is from the bottom up, not the top down, and to launch quixotic bids for the highest office which hands the election over to the most conservative Republicans is the most self defeating thing I can think of.
Ralph Nader, over the past decade, has done nothing to build the kind of progressive movment he claims to care so much about, except to run for president every four years, ostensibly to influence the debate. He abandoned the Green Party after he had used it to help Bush steal the 2000 election from Gore, and moved to the Reform Party (which had previously nominated the likes of Ross Perot and Pat Buchanan) to launch an insipid attempt in 2004 to help Bush defeat Kerry. Bush did defeat Kerry, but he turned out not to have needed Nader's help.
Of course, anyone who is constitutionally eligible is totally entitled to run, under the banner of any political organization they see fit. However, they should also be held responsible for their the consequences of their actions. And Ralph Nader, for his failure to take any responsibility for the disastrous consequences of his deceptive and pigheaded run in 2000, should be a pariah to anyone who is even the least bit ticked at what the last 7 years have brought. Yes, Al Gore's run in 2000 was a lot more mediocre than it should have been. But if he had won, as he should have (and as he in fact did, before the Supreme Court gave it to W), there is no doubt that we wouldn't have seen the most of the mess of the last 7 years - Iraq, Katrina, corporate giveaways and abuse of the environment. And I am placing a large heap of the blame on Ralph Nader's feet.
Because Nader, with a straight face, and eloquently so, said there was no difference between Gore and Bush. Tweedledee and Tweedledum he called them. Does anyone actually think he was in anyway accurate? How could someone like Ralph Nader, who had spent his entire career battling against people like Bush, say he wasn't differentiable from Gore or Clinton? He was basically saying it was OK if Bush won, and essentially paving his way for doing so, because he was the exact same as Al Gore! Al Gore of An Inconvenient Truth. Al Gore who has won a Nobel Prize for his leadership on climate change, and has been a loud and strident critic of this administration's disastrous foreign policy and abuse of the constitution. Ralph Nader said they were one and the same. If he infact mistakenly got it so wrong, he should be consigned to the rubbish dump of history, alongside the record company that passed on the Beatles.
And then he deliberately sabotaged Gore by actively campaigning not only in crucial swing states like Florida (we all know how that turned out), but other states such as Wisconsin and Oregon, so that Gore had to spend time and resources playing defense there. And he has made no bones about accepting donations and ballot help from Republican Party PACs, who obviously are grateful to him, as they should be.
Like I said, I don't think anyone is going to be that gullible again. And I don''t even know what vacuum he thinks he is going to fill. There is a large, thriving grassroots political movement which is in no way of his making. And all of the rich white college kids who formed his political base have developed a sweet sweet taste of Obamarama. So I fully expect that his ego trip will fall flat on its face and he'll return to the political Siberia he crawled out of to make his odious campaign announcement.
Saturday, February 23
Health Care
Its kinda refreshing seeing the Democratic candidates debate each other on such a fundamental progressive issue like universal health care. After the nonstories and silliness of the attacks by Clinton before the last debate, I am happy the focus of the debate has returned to actual policy, which I think is fair game for candidates to draw distinctions.
However, maybe I'm such an Obama partisan that I so easily get on the defensive, I'm troubled by the manner of Clinton's tirade today. To paraphrase, she accuses Obama of Karl Rove style politics because of aggressive speeches and mailings where he claims, erronously in her campaign's view, that her health care plan has some deficiencies.
Hillary has attacked Obama's health care plan over the past month, fairly in my opinion, because she feels it is not "universal" in the true sense of the word. But whats good for the goose is good for the gander as well; I don't see why Obama can't respond by pointing out ways in which he feels his own plan is better. That hardly constitutes a Swift Boat style attack.
For the record, I am torn between both their plans, and find both their arguments legitimate. I personally favor a single payer not-for-profit government operated plan (as do most other progressives) but I know thats not going to happen in this country in my lifetime or yours. So I guess making healthcare as affordable and accessible as possible is whats important, and both candidates seem to emphasize these. Hillary's is technically more universal since it requires every one to buy into government provided health care (if they arent already covered) and imposes penalties to those who fail to buy health insurance. Obama doesn't impose such mandates (except for parents, who need to buy insurance for their kids). His argument is that people are without insurance because its too expensive, not because they don't want it. He also provides a government plan which anyone can buy into, and which doesn't discriminate.
I think both plans have merits, and I would love to see them actually debate this without it devolving into personal attacks. In any case, whichever of them ends up in the Oval Office has to negotiate with a Congress (likely Democratic, but with filibuster-happy Republicans) as well as a federal bureaucracy, so the eventual health care plan isnt going to be exacly what they are proposing now. Still, this is a debate worth having, if only to establish their progressive bona fides.
I'm worried that as the nomination further slips away from Hillary, she might be resorting to scorched earth campaigning, but I don't want to assume the worst. I guess a more optimistic way to look at it is that Obama needs as much practice as he can get in learning how to fight back against McCain in the general. Plus its not she's giving McCain ammo for the fall; I doubt McCain will be attacking Obama for proposing a health care plan that's not universal enough.
However, maybe I'm such an Obama partisan that I so easily get on the defensive, I'm troubled by the manner of Clinton's tirade today. To paraphrase, she accuses Obama of Karl Rove style politics because of aggressive speeches and mailings where he claims, erronously in her campaign's view, that her health care plan has some deficiencies.
Hillary has attacked Obama's health care plan over the past month, fairly in my opinion, because she feels it is not "universal" in the true sense of the word. But whats good for the goose is good for the gander as well; I don't see why Obama can't respond by pointing out ways in which he feels his own plan is better. That hardly constitutes a Swift Boat style attack.
For the record, I am torn between both their plans, and find both their arguments legitimate. I personally favor a single payer not-for-profit government operated plan (as do most other progressives) but I know thats not going to happen in this country in my lifetime or yours. So I guess making healthcare as affordable and accessible as possible is whats important, and both candidates seem to emphasize these. Hillary's is technically more universal since it requires every one to buy into government provided health care (if they arent already covered) and imposes penalties to those who fail to buy health insurance. Obama doesn't impose such mandates (except for parents, who need to buy insurance for their kids). His argument is that people are without insurance because its too expensive, not because they don't want it. He also provides a government plan which anyone can buy into, and which doesn't discriminate.
I think both plans have merits, and I would love to see them actually debate this without it devolving into personal attacks. In any case, whichever of them ends up in the Oval Office has to negotiate with a Congress (likely Democratic, but with filibuster-happy Republicans) as well as a federal bureaucracy, so the eventual health care plan isnt going to be exacly what they are proposing now. Still, this is a debate worth having, if only to establish their progressive bona fides.
I'm worried that as the nomination further slips away from Hillary, she might be resorting to scorched earth campaigning, but I don't want to assume the worst. I guess a more optimistic way to look at it is that Obama needs as much practice as he can get in learning how to fight back against McCain in the general. Plus its not she's giving McCain ammo for the fall; I doubt McCain will be attacking Obama for proposing a health care plan that's not universal enough.
Thursday, February 21
John McCain and the New York Times
My reaction to the alleged McCain story making the rounds is twofold. To summarize, John McCain, while running for president 8 years ago, developed a romantic relationship with a female lobbyist, bringing all sorts of political conflicts of interest into play. And some of his aides had to intervene to "save him from himself."
Like I said, there are two parts to this scandal from the way I see it. There's the romantic aspect, with McCain supposedly having an adulterous affair with a woman 30 years younger. I largely couldn't care less about this part, and don't think it is relevant in any way. I don't think the sexual peccadiloes of elected politicians affects their capacity to serve. In cases where hypocrisy comes into play, like a Sen. Larry Craig, or Newt Gingrich carrying a witchhunt against Clinton when he was also fooling around, I'd say it matters, but in this case, I'm gonna take a pass. There's a lot I don't agree with McCain on, and there's plenty of other reasons why I think he's unfit to be president, but this isn't one of them.
More importantly, however, if he was providing political favors for a lobbyist while carrying on a romantic relationship with her, there are a lot of questions raised, and I'd say raising this as a political point is fair game. John McCain has distinguished himself on the basis of ethics and integrity, and I don't think there are many other politicians in either party who have done more to promote political transparency than John McCain. If it does turn out that he is guilty on this count (something that is yet to be proven, so I'm considering him innocent until something more substantial comes out.
The biggest story in this at this point, as far as I am concerned, is the fact that the New York Times had this story right at the end of last year, and were going to come forward right before the New Hampshire primary, but decided to sit on it. Infact, they only published the story today because a rival news organization (The New Republic) were about to come forward with the news. Needless to say, if this had come out a month and a half ago, McCain would have lost in NH heavily, with no way to recover. If I was a Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee supporter, I would be really pissed at the New York Times, and rightly so.
A lot of conservative pundits have been frothing at the mouth, calling it an attempt by the "liberal media" to discredit the Republican nominee. Infact, this couldn't be further from reality. By refusing to come forward with the scandal early enough to influence the outcome of the Republican primaries, but 9 months before the general election when it should already have become old news, I don't see this as being anything other than a favor for the Republican party.
Like I said, there are two parts to this scandal from the way I see it. There's the romantic aspect, with McCain supposedly having an adulterous affair with a woman 30 years younger. I largely couldn't care less about this part, and don't think it is relevant in any way. I don't think the sexual peccadiloes of elected politicians affects their capacity to serve. In cases where hypocrisy comes into play, like a Sen. Larry Craig, or Newt Gingrich carrying a witchhunt against Clinton when he was also fooling around, I'd say it matters, but in this case, I'm gonna take a pass. There's a lot I don't agree with McCain on, and there's plenty of other reasons why I think he's unfit to be president, but this isn't one of them.
More importantly, however, if he was providing political favors for a lobbyist while carrying on a romantic relationship with her, there are a lot of questions raised, and I'd say raising this as a political point is fair game. John McCain has distinguished himself on the basis of ethics and integrity, and I don't think there are many other politicians in either party who have done more to promote political transparency than John McCain. If it does turn out that he is guilty on this count (something that is yet to be proven, so I'm considering him innocent until something more substantial comes out.
The biggest story in this at this point, as far as I am concerned, is the fact that the New York Times had this story right at the end of last year, and were going to come forward right before the New Hampshire primary, but decided to sit on it. Infact, they only published the story today because a rival news organization (The New Republic) were about to come forward with the news. Needless to say, if this had come out a month and a half ago, McCain would have lost in NH heavily, with no way to recover. If I was a Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee supporter, I would be really pissed at the New York Times, and rightly so.
A lot of conservative pundits have been frothing at the mouth, calling it an attempt by the "liberal media" to discredit the Republican nominee. Infact, this couldn't be further from reality. By refusing to come forward with the scandal early enough to influence the outcome of the Republican primaries, but 9 months before the general election when it should already have become old news, I don't see this as being anything other than a favor for the Republican party.
All the whiskey in heaven
I read the cutest little poem by Charles Bernstein in the newest edition of The Nation magazine that tugged at my heartstrings, so I thought I'd post it.
Not for all the whiskey in heaven
Not for all the flies in Vermont
Not for all the tears in the basement
Not for a million trips to Mars
Not if you paid me in diamonds
Not if you paid me in pearls
Not if you gave me your pinky ring
Not if you gave me your curls
Not for all the fire in hell
Not for all the blue in the sky
Not for an empire of my own
Not even for peace of mind
No, never, I'll never stop loving you
Not till my heart beats its last
And even then in my words and my songs
I will love you all over again
Not for all the whiskey in heaven
Not for all the flies in Vermont
Not for all the tears in the basement
Not for a million trips to Mars
Not if you paid me in diamonds
Not if you paid me in pearls
Not if you gave me your pinky ring
Not if you gave me your curls
Not for all the fire in hell
Not for all the blue in the sky
Not for an empire of my own
Not even for peace of mind
No, never, I'll never stop loving you
Not till my heart beats its last
And even then in my words and my songs
I will love you all over again
Wednesday, February 20
Internecine
I've always liked that word. It definitely sounds like something much more pleasant than it actually is.
It is one of those words I always try to work into a sentence whenever I can, ever since I learned it studying for the SATs back in the day.
Its being thrown around so much these days (in the coverage of the presidential race) its not even funny. Obama and Clinton in internecine battle for convention delegates. McCain in internecine struggle with the far right. I'm not going anywhere with this, its just funny.
I've been going through my mind all day trying to come up with a theme or purpose for this blog. I definitely have no shortage of opinions, and its nice to have an outlet to express them, although I want to spare myself the time if its not going to be original or fresh or purposeful. I don't want to just rehash obvious shit or stuff other people think, plus I don't really have the time to draft really crafted out editorials and stuff.
I think its just gonna be a daily round-up of the news and events from the day, and my thoughts on them. Kinda like Keith Olbermann's Countdown show on MSNBC.
Starting tomorrow though :) I'm tired as hell, so all the talk of the eclipse, or McCain's alleged affair (by the way, ewwww, gross) or the Champions League, will have to wait till another day.
It is one of those words I always try to work into a sentence whenever I can, ever since I learned it studying for the SATs back in the day.
Its being thrown around so much these days (in the coverage of the presidential race) its not even funny. Obama and Clinton in internecine battle for convention delegates. McCain in internecine struggle with the far right. I'm not going anywhere with this, its just funny.
I've been going through my mind all day trying to come up with a theme or purpose for this blog. I definitely have no shortage of opinions, and its nice to have an outlet to express them, although I want to spare myself the time if its not going to be original or fresh or purposeful. I don't want to just rehash obvious shit or stuff other people think, plus I don't really have the time to draft really crafted out editorials and stuff.
I think its just gonna be a daily round-up of the news and events from the day, and my thoughts on them. Kinda like Keith Olbermann's Countdown show on MSNBC.
Starting tomorrow though :) I'm tired as hell, so all the talk of the eclipse, or McCain's alleged affair (by the way, ewwww, gross) or the Champions League, will have to wait till another day.
Tuesday, February 19
Blogga, Pleez
I'm shamelessly appropriating this blog title from the indefatigable Bill Maher, one of the funniest men in the world.
Watching the returns from the Wisconsin primary, swigging a few celebratory vodka shots, and doing what I've been putting off for years - starting my own blog. There have been a few feeble attempts in the past, but I think this is for real.
This is mainly going to be my reflections, mostly on national politics (with some global observations thrown in), but might encompass several of my myriad other interests.
Enjoy
Watching the returns from the Wisconsin primary, swigging a few celebratory vodka shots, and doing what I've been putting off for years - starting my own blog. There have been a few feeble attempts in the past, but I think this is for real.
This is mainly going to be my reflections, mostly on national politics (with some global observations thrown in), but might encompass several of my myriad other interests.
Enjoy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)