Although I think that the Olympics should be focused on athletics instead of political demonstrations, I am reminded of the Berlin Games in 1936. If anyone had taken a stand against Hitler, we can only fantasize how history may have unfolded differently. I think that in hindsight, the US would be foolish to say they did the right thing in participating in Berlin. In life, we can't always departmentalize different areas when politics is so often infused in everything we do.
Hillary Clinton is advocating that Bush take a presidential stand and not attend the opening ceremony in Beijing because of China's rocky relationship with Tibet and the country's support of the Sudanese government.
Obama has said he is of "two minds" on this subject. This may just be a convenient way for him to not piss anyone off.
I can see the pros and cons of Hillary making this statement. I am impressed that she takes such stands, because it shows she is not of "two minds" and will make bold and resolute choices. In such a position of authority, the president has to make difficult decisions.
This issue of the president's boycott of the opening ceremony will not affect US domestic policy or many issues such as the economy or healthcare that make us worry.
But if Obama can't make up his mind on something relatively insignificant, I question how he will act when it comes to serious US concerns.
For my part, as much as I want the Olympics to focus on the hard-working athletes, we're kidding ourselves if we think the this is some kind of lovefest where political activity has no part. It's a competition! And if there's nothing wrong with athletic competition, there's nothing wrong with peaceful political competition that opens dialogue on important world-wide issues.
If you think about it, it's really the best opportunity for it.
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Monday, April 7, 2008
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Clinton's lost face time
Our culture's double standard on appearance puts her at a disadvantage.
By Michael Kinsley
March 27, 2008 Taken from LA TIMES
The conversation was about how tiring it must be to run for president, and someone -- a woman -- said that, on top of everything else, Hillary Clinton has to spend an hour and a half getting ready for each day's campaigning.
She didn't mean that Clinton was studying her notes or making sure she knows the name of the mayor of McKeesport, Pa. She meant that the candidate was doing her hair, putting on makeup, deciding what to wear or at least thinking about it even if she has someone to decide for her. And so on. Other women thought an hour and a half seemed longer than necessary, but the bottom offer was 40 minutes. And that's just in the morning. Shorter versions of the morning ritual go on throughout the day.
And how long does it take Barack Obama or even John McCain with his war injuries to shower, shave and put on one of a dozen identical dark blue suits, a white shirt and a red tie? Let's not be completely naive and posit that these men also take a dab of makeup here and there. So let's say 20 minutes.
Any man who has twiddled his thumbs waiting for his wife or opposite-sex partner to get ready to go out should not have been surprised by this. But all the men in this particular conversation were taken aback -- and so were the women, as the reality sunk in. Every day for almost two years, the candidates campaign. The average day is probably 15 to 20 hours. The average amount of sleep could be four hours. Yet, every day, the male candidates can sleep an extra precious half-hour or more -- or spend the time cramming for the day -- simply because our culture doesn't impose the same rules on them about their appearance.
And these really are rules. Sure, there are women who take no more trouble about their appearance than most men do, and men who take more than the typical woman. But a middle-aged woman who is the first of her sex to make a serious run for the presidency is not going to be a pioneer in indifference to looks. One revolution at a time. She has got to look put together, all day, every day.
Clinton doesn't seem especially vain about looks, whereas Obama has dropped hints that he may well be. Nevertheless, if it ever came out that Obama was spending an hour primping every morning, it would hurt him, not help him. Whereas if Clinton were known to spend an hour dressing and primping, no one would be surprised. And if she looked as if she had spent much less than that, it would hurt her.
A year ago, the big dinner-table question was whether it is a bigger disadvantage in running for president to be an African American or a woman. It seemed for a while as if neither one was a particular disadvantage. In fact, the prize for biggest burden of prejudice to be lugging around the primaries went to Mitt Romney for being a Mormon. Cautiously, we were starting to congratulate ourselves on having moved beyond race and sex. Then came the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. and Geraldine Ferraro, and we were plunged into a "conversation about race." Ferraro said that Obama's race might actually be an advantage.
This is implausible. But let's go back to gender: What about his advantage in being a man? And I don't mean anything fancy and psychological. I don't even mean the double standard that allows the media to report on how a female candidate dresses while ignoring this crucial issue regarding male candidates. We'll get past that some day.
But even then, it will take a female candidate longer to get ready to campaign than it will take a man. In most occupations, this 20 minutes doesn't make much difference -- especially compared with the disproportionate time that women still spend housekeeping and child-rearing. Of course, after the election, no one will care if the president is well-coiffed when answering that 3 a.m. phone call. But in a close-fought election campaign, every minute counts. If you figure 20 minutes a day over a year and a half of 14-hour days and six-day weeks, it comes out to an extra two weeks of campaigning or sleep for a male candidate.
This issue goes back to the early days of "women's lib," of course, when opponents of the movement talked about "bra burners" and made crude jokes about unshaved legs. It was considered an advance when it became established that a woman could dress like a woman and still be a business executive or lawyer. And Hillary Clinton, even if she loses, has established beyond all doubt that a woman can be a credible candidate for president. But she'll have to be one who needs even less sleep than her opponent.
Michael Kinsley, a contributing editor to Opinion, is The Times' former editorial page editor. He is also former editor of the New Republic, Slate and Harper's.
By Michael Kinsley
March 27, 2008 Taken from LA TIMES
The conversation was about how tiring it must be to run for president, and someone -- a woman -- said that, on top of everything else, Hillary Clinton has to spend an hour and a half getting ready for each day's campaigning.
She didn't mean that Clinton was studying her notes or making sure she knows the name of the mayor of McKeesport, Pa. She meant that the candidate was doing her hair, putting on makeup, deciding what to wear or at least thinking about it even if she has someone to decide for her. And so on. Other women thought an hour and a half seemed longer than necessary, but the bottom offer was 40 minutes. And that's just in the morning. Shorter versions of the morning ritual go on throughout the day.
And how long does it take Barack Obama or even John McCain with his war injuries to shower, shave and put on one of a dozen identical dark blue suits, a white shirt and a red tie? Let's not be completely naive and posit that these men also take a dab of makeup here and there. So let's say 20 minutes.
Any man who has twiddled his thumbs waiting for his wife or opposite-sex partner to get ready to go out should not have been surprised by this. But all the men in this particular conversation were taken aback -- and so were the women, as the reality sunk in. Every day for almost two years, the candidates campaign. The average day is probably 15 to 20 hours. The average amount of sleep could be four hours. Yet, every day, the male candidates can sleep an extra precious half-hour or more -- or spend the time cramming for the day -- simply because our culture doesn't impose the same rules on them about their appearance.
And these really are rules. Sure, there are women who take no more trouble about their appearance than most men do, and men who take more than the typical woman. But a middle-aged woman who is the first of her sex to make a serious run for the presidency is not going to be a pioneer in indifference to looks. One revolution at a time. She has got to look put together, all day, every day.
Clinton doesn't seem especially vain about looks, whereas Obama has dropped hints that he may well be. Nevertheless, if it ever came out that Obama was spending an hour primping every morning, it would hurt him, not help him. Whereas if Clinton were known to spend an hour dressing and primping, no one would be surprised. And if she looked as if she had spent much less than that, it would hurt her.
A year ago, the big dinner-table question was whether it is a bigger disadvantage in running for president to be an African American or a woman. It seemed for a while as if neither one was a particular disadvantage. In fact, the prize for biggest burden of prejudice to be lugging around the primaries went to Mitt Romney for being a Mormon. Cautiously, we were starting to congratulate ourselves on having moved beyond race and sex. Then came the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. and Geraldine Ferraro, and we were plunged into a "conversation about race." Ferraro said that Obama's race might actually be an advantage.
This is implausible. But let's go back to gender: What about his advantage in being a man? And I don't mean anything fancy and psychological. I don't even mean the double standard that allows the media to report on how a female candidate dresses while ignoring this crucial issue regarding male candidates. We'll get past that some day.
But even then, it will take a female candidate longer to get ready to campaign than it will take a man. In most occupations, this 20 minutes doesn't make much difference -- especially compared with the disproportionate time that women still spend housekeeping and child-rearing. Of course, after the election, no one will care if the president is well-coiffed when answering that 3 a.m. phone call. But in a close-fought election campaign, every minute counts. If you figure 20 minutes a day over a year and a half of 14-hour days and six-day weeks, it comes out to an extra two weeks of campaigning or sleep for a male candidate.
This issue goes back to the early days of "women's lib," of course, when opponents of the movement talked about "bra burners" and made crude jokes about unshaved legs. It was considered an advance when it became established that a woman could dress like a woman and still be a business executive or lawyer. And Hillary Clinton, even if she loses, has established beyond all doubt that a woman can be a credible candidate for president. But she'll have to be one who needs even less sleep than her opponent.
Michael Kinsley, a contributing editor to Opinion, is The Times' former editorial page editor. He is also former editor of the New Republic, Slate and Harper's.
Monday, March 24, 2008
McCain in California
John McCain is campaigning in California with 6 events scheduled in the next few days. I just checked out his website to see what events are open to the public, and unless I am willing to spend $2300 on a preferred ticket, or $1000 just plain unpreferred, to see the "presumptive"(anyone else sick of that word?) republican candidate speak, I'm out of luck. It looks like all of the advertised events are either private ones or fundraisers.
Let's hope that changes and that he will campaign in a democratic way to inform all voters, not just the rich or party-connected ones, about his platform. This is what I so appreciated about Hillary Clinton. She had three appearances in three weeks all at venues open to the public. John Edwards also had one. As well as Mitt Romney. I hope that trend will continue, since it is the only opportunity for some of us to really learn about the candidates.
Here's McCain's California schedule:
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Calendar/
03/24/2008
La Jolla Finance Luncheon
La Jolla, California
03/24/2008
California Finance Reception, Palm Desert
Palm Desert, CA
03/25/2008
Orange County Fundraising Luncheon
Newport Beach, California
03/25/2008
Los Angeles Finance Reception
Los Angeles, California
03/26/2008
Speech before the Los Angeles World Affairs Council
Los Angeles, California
03/26/2008
Pebble Beach Finance Luncheon
Pebble Beach, CA, Finance Lunch
03/26/2008
San Francisco Finance Reception
San Francisco, CA
Let's hope that changes and that he will campaign in a democratic way to inform all voters, not just the rich or party-connected ones, about his platform. This is what I so appreciated about Hillary Clinton. She had three appearances in three weeks all at venues open to the public. John Edwards also had one. As well as Mitt Romney. I hope that trend will continue, since it is the only opportunity for some of us to really learn about the candidates.
Here's McCain's California schedule:
http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Calendar/
03/24/2008
La Jolla Finance Luncheon
La Jolla, California
03/24/2008
California Finance Reception, Palm Desert
Palm Desert, CA
03/25/2008
Orange County Fundraising Luncheon
Newport Beach, California
03/25/2008
Los Angeles Finance Reception
Los Angeles, California
03/26/2008
Speech before the Los Angeles World Affairs Council
Los Angeles, California
03/26/2008
Pebble Beach Finance Luncheon
Pebble Beach, CA, Finance Lunch
03/26/2008
San Francisco Finance Reception
San Francisco, CA
Monday, February 25, 2008
Don't be quick to count out a Clinton
By NANCY BENAC, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - History shows the folly of counting out a Clinton.
If Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign is looking more and more like the Titanic, she may yet prove to be the unsinkable Molly Brown.
Ask Mike McCurry about the Clintons' resilience. McCurry worked for Bob Kerrey, one of Bill Clinton's chief rivals in the 1992 presidential campaign. He remembers the day details broke about Clinton's efforts to avoid the Vietnam draft, just weeks after allegations had surfaced of an affair with Gennifer Flowers.
"He's toast," McCurry told co-workers on the Kerrey campaign. "He's never going to survive this." McCurry went on to become Clinton's chief White House spokesman.
Hillary Clinton was a huge factor in her husband's 1992 victory — and in any number of other recoveries during his agony-and-ecstasy political career. Now, she's the one attempting to rebound from 11 straight primary and caucus losses to Barack Obama.
Obama is well aware of the Clintons' supersized survival instincts. Aides say privately that's one reason the Illinois senator has continued to go after her so directly rather than adopting a traditional front-runner's strategy of ignoring his rival.
"I'd hold the obituary" for Clinton, says David Gergen, who served as an adviser to four presidents, including Bill Clinton. "She, like he, has enormous inner reserves upon which to draw. That's why, no matter what else happens, you can't discount the possibility that she's going to bounce back."
She's already done it once this year, pulling off an upset in New Hampshire after taking a shellacking in the leadoff Iowa caucuses.
"We're going to keep pushing as hard as we can," she promised after placing third in Iowa. She's been saying much the same thing as she fights for victories in Texas and Ohio next week to revive her candidacy.
Trite as that may sound, it's part of the secret to the Clintons' success.
"They never say die," said Mary Matalin, who served as deputy campaign manager of the unsuccessful Bush re-election campaign in 1992. "In all the years I've been watching them, it never occurs to them to throw in the towel. There's no 'What's my graceful exit strategy?' They don't have that gene."
Democratic strategist Jennifer Palmieri, an eight-year veteran of the Clinton White House, sees the same mettle.
"They take a very long view of things, and they expect to win," said Palmieri. "It's something that not enough people perhaps on the Democratic side do — expect to win."
The notion of a former first lady running for a Senate seat from a state in which she had no political connections was written off at first, but now Clinton is in her second term holding the New York Senate seat once occupied by Robert F. Kennedy.
The Clintons' boom-and-bust cycle began long before they arrived on the national scene.
It started with a bust: In 1974, Bill Clinton made an unsuccessful run for Congress at age 28. Two years later, he bounced back and was elected Arkansas attorney general. And two years after that, at 32, he became the nation's youngest governor.
Then, defeat again: In 1980, done in by what he admitted was the arrogance of youth, Clinton lost his bid for re-election to a second term as governor. Two years later, redemption. He pulled off a comeback and never lost another race.
Along the way, the Clintons proved themselves to be tough street fighters.
In 1990, when Gov. Clinton faced a strong re-election challenge, it was first lady Hillary who crashed a news conference held by the opponent and undercut him with documents showing he had praised Clinton's performance as governor.
"That is a group that can take a punch and they can lay a punch," said Palmieri. "They are smart and they're fearless, but they're not reckless."
The Clinton roller coaster ride was far from over.
The 1992 presidential campaign amounted to a running revival show for the Clintons, and the presidency unfolded like a sequel.
It was almost always a team effort, and Hillary Clinton had a starring role in one early and prominent defeat, the ill-fated health-care reform effort.
In 1994, after Paula Jones filed a sexual harassment suit against Bill, it was Hillary who first interviewed lawyer Robert Bennett about helping fend off what Clinton insiders were calling the latest "bimbo eruption." There were other problems, as well. The Whitewater mess had followed the Clintons north from Arkansas, and Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr was investigating.
The midterm elections that year, in which Republicans seized control of the House and Senate, served as resounding repudiation to the president.
By mid-1995, the Clinton presidency was in free fall. Internal polls found that two-thirds of Americans ruled out voting to re-elect him. Aides cringed when Clinton felt compelled to insist at a news conference, "The president is relevant."
Through it all, Hillary Clinton was "a steadying force," Gergen said. "One of the reasons this marriage has worked for both of them is that he could always look to her for help in getting through things."
Bill Clinton was chastened but forged ahead, adapting to the changed political dynamic. In his 1996 State of the Union address, the president who had come to office promising to do so much instead declared, "The era of big government is over."
Voters in 1996 rewarded him with re-election, and he set out to exceed the low expectations set for second-term presidents.
Those efforts were overshadowed by his involvement with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. The ensuing investigation and impeachment melodrama tested the Clintons' resilience and their marriage as never before, but they persevered and Hillary Clinton emerged stronger than ever.
She gave a hint of that last week when she told the audience at a Democratic debate, "I think everybody here knows I've lived through some crises and some challenging moments in my life." And that may explain her ability to press forward when the odds appear so daunting.
When it comes to the Clintons, says Palmieri, "The one thing you can almost always say about whatever situation you're in is that you've seen worse. So they don't get rattled. They have a much better perspective about how to deal with difficult days."
___
Associated Press Writer Nedra Pickler contributed to this report.
WASHINGTON - History shows the folly of counting out a Clinton.
If Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign is looking more and more like the Titanic, she may yet prove to be the unsinkable Molly Brown.
Ask Mike McCurry about the Clintons' resilience. McCurry worked for Bob Kerrey, one of Bill Clinton's chief rivals in the 1992 presidential campaign. He remembers the day details broke about Clinton's efforts to avoid the Vietnam draft, just weeks after allegations had surfaced of an affair with Gennifer Flowers.
"He's toast," McCurry told co-workers on the Kerrey campaign. "He's never going to survive this." McCurry went on to become Clinton's chief White House spokesman.
Hillary Clinton was a huge factor in her husband's 1992 victory — and in any number of other recoveries during his agony-and-ecstasy political career. Now, she's the one attempting to rebound from 11 straight primary and caucus losses to Barack Obama.
Obama is well aware of the Clintons' supersized survival instincts. Aides say privately that's one reason the Illinois senator has continued to go after her so directly rather than adopting a traditional front-runner's strategy of ignoring his rival.
"I'd hold the obituary" for Clinton, says David Gergen, who served as an adviser to four presidents, including Bill Clinton. "She, like he, has enormous inner reserves upon which to draw. That's why, no matter what else happens, you can't discount the possibility that she's going to bounce back."
She's already done it once this year, pulling off an upset in New Hampshire after taking a shellacking in the leadoff Iowa caucuses.
"We're going to keep pushing as hard as we can," she promised after placing third in Iowa. She's been saying much the same thing as she fights for victories in Texas and Ohio next week to revive her candidacy.
Trite as that may sound, it's part of the secret to the Clintons' success.
"They never say die," said Mary Matalin, who served as deputy campaign manager of the unsuccessful Bush re-election campaign in 1992. "In all the years I've been watching them, it never occurs to them to throw in the towel. There's no 'What's my graceful exit strategy?' They don't have that gene."
Democratic strategist Jennifer Palmieri, an eight-year veteran of the Clinton White House, sees the same mettle.
"They take a very long view of things, and they expect to win," said Palmieri. "It's something that not enough people perhaps on the Democratic side do — expect to win."
The notion of a former first lady running for a Senate seat from a state in which she had no political connections was written off at first, but now Clinton is in her second term holding the New York Senate seat once occupied by Robert F. Kennedy.
The Clintons' boom-and-bust cycle began long before they arrived on the national scene.
It started with a bust: In 1974, Bill Clinton made an unsuccessful run for Congress at age 28. Two years later, he bounced back and was elected Arkansas attorney general. And two years after that, at 32, he became the nation's youngest governor.
Then, defeat again: In 1980, done in by what he admitted was the arrogance of youth, Clinton lost his bid for re-election to a second term as governor. Two years later, redemption. He pulled off a comeback and never lost another race.
Along the way, the Clintons proved themselves to be tough street fighters.
In 1990, when Gov. Clinton faced a strong re-election challenge, it was first lady Hillary who crashed a news conference held by the opponent and undercut him with documents showing he had praised Clinton's performance as governor.
"That is a group that can take a punch and they can lay a punch," said Palmieri. "They are smart and they're fearless, but they're not reckless."
The Clinton roller coaster ride was far from over.
The 1992 presidential campaign amounted to a running revival show for the Clintons, and the presidency unfolded like a sequel.
It was almost always a team effort, and Hillary Clinton had a starring role in one early and prominent defeat, the ill-fated health-care reform effort.
In 1994, after Paula Jones filed a sexual harassment suit against Bill, it was Hillary who first interviewed lawyer Robert Bennett about helping fend off what Clinton insiders were calling the latest "bimbo eruption." There were other problems, as well. The Whitewater mess had followed the Clintons north from Arkansas, and Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr was investigating.
The midterm elections that year, in which Republicans seized control of the House and Senate, served as resounding repudiation to the president.
By mid-1995, the Clinton presidency was in free fall. Internal polls found that two-thirds of Americans ruled out voting to re-elect him. Aides cringed when Clinton felt compelled to insist at a news conference, "The president is relevant."
Through it all, Hillary Clinton was "a steadying force," Gergen said. "One of the reasons this marriage has worked for both of them is that he could always look to her for help in getting through things."
Bill Clinton was chastened but forged ahead, adapting to the changed political dynamic. In his 1996 State of the Union address, the president who had come to office promising to do so much instead declared, "The era of big government is over."
Voters in 1996 rewarded him with re-election, and he set out to exceed the low expectations set for second-term presidents.
Those efforts were overshadowed by his involvement with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. The ensuing investigation and impeachment melodrama tested the Clintons' resilience and their marriage as never before, but they persevered and Hillary Clinton emerged stronger than ever.
She gave a hint of that last week when she told the audience at a Democratic debate, "I think everybody here knows I've lived through some crises and some challenging moments in my life." And that may explain her ability to press forward when the odds appear so daunting.
When it comes to the Clintons, says Palmieri, "The one thing you can almost always say about whatever situation you're in is that you've seen worse. So they don't get rattled. They have a much better perspective about how to deal with difficult days."
___
Associated Press Writer Nedra Pickler contributed to this report.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Obama Camps calls this the 11th hour? How does that make Pennsylvania feel, Senator?
So the Obama camp, after always claiming victory even when he was an underdog, is now calling this the "11th" hour when still may states are left to vote - even through the month of May. He likes where he is, thank you very much, and doesn't feel much like competing anymore. My friend in Pennsylvania, who is a democrat and still undecided, represents scores of voters in the remaining states who, I'm certain, would not appreciate BO's attitude.
The most troubling stance the BO camp has taken is the stiff disacknowledgment of Florida and Michigan voters. Since when should bureaucracy stand in the way of the voice of the people? ''Now, when they believe it serves their political interests, they're trying to rewrite the rules,'' Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, told reporters in a telephone call. ``Now, at the 11th hour, the Clinton campaign is trying to rewrite rules that were firmly established, and I don't think there's a lot of appetite for that in the country or a lot of appetite for that at the DNC.'' (Taken from Miami Herald)
Hmmmmmmmmmm...doesn't sound very unifying to me. I would urge the Obama camp to find a way not to disenfranchise Florida and Michigan voters. Obama wants a change in Washington? How will he do that when he upholds rules that disenfrance voters and doesn't propose an amendment, an alternative, or a means to voice their votes? How can he talk change, when he can even do it in his campaign?
The most troubling stance the BO camp has taken is the stiff disacknowledgment of Florida and Michigan voters. Since when should bureaucracy stand in the way of the voice of the people? ''Now, when they believe it serves their political interests, they're trying to rewrite the rules,'' Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, told reporters in a telephone call. ``Now, at the 11th hour, the Clinton campaign is trying to rewrite rules that were firmly established, and I don't think there's a lot of appetite for that in the country or a lot of appetite for that at the DNC.'' (Taken from Miami Herald)
Hmmmmmmmmmm...doesn't sound very unifying to me. I would urge the Obama camp to find a way not to disenfranchise Florida and Michigan voters. Obama wants a change in Washington? How will he do that when he upholds rules that disenfrance voters and doesn't propose an amendment, an alternative, or a means to voice their votes? How can he talk change, when he can even do it in his campaign?
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Villaraigosa plays fairweather politics
So Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa endorses and campaigns for Senator Clinton, but now that the heat is on, he gets all ambiguous and supportive of Obama on the Tavis Smiley Show? It's unfortunate that he can't step up to the plate and support Hillary when he is considered one of her main supporters, especially now when she needs it. Obama and Clinton are not the same, and the cause for supporting a democratic candidate should not trump supporting the individual based on their ability, strength, and merit.
This is the time when Mayor I'm-not-voting-for-him-next-time, and other supporters, need to keep their word and learn how to follow-through and speak smartly and coherently on behalf of those they campaign for. Villaraigosa's ambiguousness and equal praise for both candidates made him appear as a fairweather supporter who would back anyone who was ahead in the polls. Shame on you, Villaraigosa. Get it together and use these media opportunities wisely, or get out of the way.
This is the time when Mayor I'm-not-voting-for-him-next-time, and other supporters, need to keep their word and learn how to follow-through and speak smartly and coherently on behalf of those they campaign for. Villaraigosa's ambiguousness and equal praise for both candidates made him appear as a fairweather supporter who would back anyone who was ahead in the polls. Shame on you, Villaraigosa. Get it together and use these media opportunities wisely, or get out of the way.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Hate Springs Eternal - OP-ED in today's NY Times
Hate Springs Eternal
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: February 11, 2008
taken from NY TIMES
"Most of the venom is coming from supporters of Barack Obama, who want their hero or nobody. His campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality."
In 1956 Adlai Stevenson, running against Dwight Eisenhower, tried to make the political style of his opponent’s vice president, a man by the name of Richard Nixon, an issue. The nation, he warned, was in danger of becoming “a land of slander and scare; the land of sly innuendo, the poison pen, the anonymous phone call and hustling, pushing, shoving; the land of smash and grab and anything to win. This is Nixonland.”
The quote comes from “Nixonland,” a soon-to-be-published political history of the years from 1964 to 1972 written by Rick Perlstein, the author of “Before the Storm.” As Mr. Perlstein shows, Stevenson warned in vain: during those years America did indeed become the land of slander and scare, of the politics of hatred.
And it still is. In fact, these days even the Democratic Party seems to be turning into Nixonland.
The bitterness of the fight for the Democratic nomination is, on the face of it, bizarre. Both candidates still standing are smart and appealing. Both have progressive agendas (although I believe that Hillary Clinton is more serious about achieving universal health care, and that Barack Obama has staked out positions that will undermine his own efforts). Both have broad support among the party’s grass roots and are favorably viewed by Democratic voters.
Supporters of each candidate should have no trouble rallying behind the other if he or she gets the nod.
Why, then, is there so much venom out there?
I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We’ve already had that from the Bush administration — remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don’t want to go there again.
What’s particularly saddening is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of “Clinton rules” — the term a number of observers use for the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent.
The prime example of Clinton rules in the 1990s was the way the press covered Whitewater. A small, failed land deal became the basis of a multiyear, multimillion-dollar investigation, which never found any evidence of wrongdoing on the Clintons’ part, yet the “scandal” became a symbol of the Clinton administration’s alleged corruption.
During the current campaign, Mrs. Clinton’s entirely reasonable remark that it took L.B.J.’s political courage and skills to bring Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to fruition was cast as some kind of outrageous denigration of Dr. King.
And the latest prominent example came when David Shuster of MSNBC, after pointing out that Chelsea Clinton was working for her mother’s campaign — as adult children of presidential aspirants often do — asked, “doesn’t it seem like Chelsea’s sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?” Mr. Shuster has been suspended, but as the Clinton campaign rightly points out, his remark was part of a broader pattern at the network.
I call it Clinton rules, but it’s a pattern that goes well beyond the Clintons. For example, Al Gore was subjected to Clinton rules during the 2000 campaign: anything he said, and some things he didn’t say (no, he never claimed to have invented the Internet), was held up as proof of his alleged character flaws.
For now, Clinton rules are working in Mr. Obama’s favor. But his supporters should not take comfort in that fact.
For one thing, Mrs. Clinton may yet be the nominee — and if Obama supporters care about anything beyond hero worship, they should want to see her win in November.
For another, if history is any guide, if Mr. Obama wins the nomination, he will quickly find himself being subjected to Clinton rules. Democrats always do.
But most of all, progressives should realize that Nixonland is not the country we want to be. Racism, misogyny and character assassination are all ways of distracting voters from the issues, and people who care about the issues have a shared interest in making the politics of hatred unacceptable.
One of the most hopeful moments of this presidential campaign came last month, when a number of Jewish leaders signed a letter condemning the smear campaign claiming that Mr. Obama was a secret Muslim. It’s a good guess that some of those leaders would prefer that Mr. Obama not become president; nonetheless, they understood that there are principles that matter more than short-term political advantage.
I’d like to see more moments like that, perhaps starting with strong assurances from both Democratic candidates that they respect their opponents and would support them in the general election.
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: February 11, 2008
taken from NY TIMES
"Most of the venom is coming from supporters of Barack Obama, who want their hero or nobody. His campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality."
In 1956 Adlai Stevenson, running against Dwight Eisenhower, tried to make the political style of his opponent’s vice president, a man by the name of Richard Nixon, an issue. The nation, he warned, was in danger of becoming “a land of slander and scare; the land of sly innuendo, the poison pen, the anonymous phone call and hustling, pushing, shoving; the land of smash and grab and anything to win. This is Nixonland.”
The quote comes from “Nixonland,” a soon-to-be-published political history of the years from 1964 to 1972 written by Rick Perlstein, the author of “Before the Storm.” As Mr. Perlstein shows, Stevenson warned in vain: during those years America did indeed become the land of slander and scare, of the politics of hatred.
And it still is. In fact, these days even the Democratic Party seems to be turning into Nixonland.
The bitterness of the fight for the Democratic nomination is, on the face of it, bizarre. Both candidates still standing are smart and appealing. Both have progressive agendas (although I believe that Hillary Clinton is more serious about achieving universal health care, and that Barack Obama has staked out positions that will undermine his own efforts). Both have broad support among the party’s grass roots and are favorably viewed by Democratic voters.
Supporters of each candidate should have no trouble rallying behind the other if he or she gets the nod.
Why, then, is there so much venom out there?
I won’t try for fake evenhandedness here: most of the venom I see is coming from supporters of Mr. Obama, who want their hero or nobody. I’m not the first to point out that the Obama campaign seems dangerously close to becoming a cult of personality. We’ve already had that from the Bush administration — remember Operation Flight Suit? We really don’t want to go there again.
What’s particularly saddening is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the application of “Clinton rules” — the term a number of observers use for the way pundits and some news organizations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent.
The prime example of Clinton rules in the 1990s was the way the press covered Whitewater. A small, failed land deal became the basis of a multiyear, multimillion-dollar investigation, which never found any evidence of wrongdoing on the Clintons’ part, yet the “scandal” became a symbol of the Clinton administration’s alleged corruption.
During the current campaign, Mrs. Clinton’s entirely reasonable remark that it took L.B.J.’s political courage and skills to bring Martin Luther King Jr.’s dream to fruition was cast as some kind of outrageous denigration of Dr. King.
And the latest prominent example came when David Shuster of MSNBC, after pointing out that Chelsea Clinton was working for her mother’s campaign — as adult children of presidential aspirants often do — asked, “doesn’t it seem like Chelsea’s sort of being pimped out in some weird sort of way?” Mr. Shuster has been suspended, but as the Clinton campaign rightly points out, his remark was part of a broader pattern at the network.
I call it Clinton rules, but it’s a pattern that goes well beyond the Clintons. For example, Al Gore was subjected to Clinton rules during the 2000 campaign: anything he said, and some things he didn’t say (no, he never claimed to have invented the Internet), was held up as proof of his alleged character flaws.
For now, Clinton rules are working in Mr. Obama’s favor. But his supporters should not take comfort in that fact.
For one thing, Mrs. Clinton may yet be the nominee — and if Obama supporters care about anything beyond hero worship, they should want to see her win in November.
For another, if history is any guide, if Mr. Obama wins the nomination, he will quickly find himself being subjected to Clinton rules. Democrats always do.
But most of all, progressives should realize that Nixonland is not the country we want to be. Racism, misogyny and character assassination are all ways of distracting voters from the issues, and people who care about the issues have a shared interest in making the politics of hatred unacceptable.
One of the most hopeful moments of this presidential campaign came last month, when a number of Jewish leaders signed a letter condemning the smear campaign claiming that Mr. Obama was a secret Muslim. It’s a good guess that some of those leaders would prefer that Mr. Obama not become president; nonetheless, they understood that there are principles that matter more than short-term political advantage.
I’d like to see more moments like that, perhaps starting with strong assurances from both Democratic candidates that they respect their opponents and would support them in the general election.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Boyle Heights Latinos for my girl Hill - In today's Los Angeles Times
Steve Lopez:
In Latino neighborhood, Clinton's experience counts
From today's LA TIMES
February 10, 2008
Nick Frousakis went to his grave in December, and one of his most loyal customers, Raul Sousa, followed him into the ground the very next day, old age doing both of them in.
"Nobody wants to sit there now," said Diego Romero, pointing to where Sousa used to hold forth at Jim's Burgers, State and 1st in Boyle Heights.
But the gang still shows up most weekdays to carry on the tradition despite the absence of Frousakis, a Greek-born businessman who had the good sense to put tacos up on the board next to hamburgers.
They drink coffee from Styrofoam cups. They soak up the sun. And they talk.
Life, death, sports, women, politics.
It was the last of those subjects I wanted to hear about last week. Latinos turned out as never before in the California presidential primary, accounting for 30% of the Democratic vote. As a group, Latinos sent an early valentine to Hillary Clinton, voting for her by a 2-1 ratio.
I wanted to know why, but first I had to find some Clinton voters. So which candidate did these guys like?
"Clinton," three men said in unison when I sat down Thursday.
"Clinton," said three different men when I took a seat at the same table Friday.
Altogether, four of the six said they had actually voted. One is a legal resident but not a citizen, and the other just didn't make it to the polls.
The state's Latinos are overwhelmingly Democratic, and none of the Jim's crowd even considered voting for a Republican, even though Sen. John McCain supported a path to legal status for many illegal immigrants.
"They're for the greedy corporations," said retired landscaper Feliz Botello. "They don't care about us and our people."
He might get some disagreement from the estimated 10% of the state's Republican voters who happen to be Latino.
So why Clinton instead of Obama?
"El sabe menos [He knows less]," Roberto Luz, a mariachi, said in Spanish of Barack Obama.
"¿Que ha hecho, él? [What has he done?]," echoed Joaquin Vega, who used to run the auto repair shop across the street.
Most of the comments were similarly straightforward. It didn't hurt that L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa supported Clinton, said the men.
But if I had to list the top reasons the men liked Clinton over Obama or a Republican candidate, the order would go something like this:
She has more experience than Obama. The Clinton name is trusted. Times were good under Bill Clinton, and Hillary is cut from the same cloth. Too much money and too many lives are being wasted in Iraq while things fall apart at home.
Jaime Regalado of Cal State L.A.'s Pat Brown Institute told me by phone that some of Clinton's enemies on the right are seen as enemies of the Latino community, particularly on the subject of immigration. She was smart, Regalado said, to use Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in TV ads and link herself to the slain Kennedy's support for Cesar Chavez and farmworkers.
Regalado was surprised by just how strong the Latino turnout was. But in retrospect, he said, the gloomy economic news, the war and the possibility of ending Republican rule were something of a perfect storm, and Latinos were eager to make their voices heard.
"The last factor is that in the Latino community, as in all communities, there is a certain amount of prejudice," Regalado said, and some Latinos were probably more comfortable with a white woman than a black man.
Even a black man who said illegal immigrants should have driver's licenses and that immigrants can't be blamed for problems in some black communities?
Yes, and yes again.
"He's a very good speaker, and maybe he would be better than Clinton," said Vega, who agreed that younger Latinos seemed a little more inclined to connect with Obama. "But I like Clinton."
I pointed out to Vega, Bill Escarsega and Botello that they don't exactly come from a matriarchal culture. So how did these old-school caballeros suddenly get so comfortable with the idea of a woman in the White House?
"It's not black or white, male or female, it's experience," said Vega.
"My grandfather? Macho, macho, macho," said Botello. "My father? Macho, macho, macho.
"I don't believe in that B.S. anymore. You know why? I'm civilized. I went to school."
When the men talked about all the lives lost in Iraq, and Botello said his cousin was killed in combat, I reminded the kaffeeklatschers that Clinton had voted to support the war.
"And she should be held responsible," said Vega, but that doesn't mean she's not the best candidate.
"Bush lied," Botello charged. "Bush and Cheney lied to everybody, including Congress."
As we spoke, a Latin beat warped and wobbled out of a music shop across 1st Street, and a man came along pushing a battered old bicycle someone had just given him. It needed some love, he said, but it would be fine.
So who did he vote for?
"Clinton," he said immediately, and with that, the former first lady had swept the corner of 1st and State streets in Boyle Heights.
In Latino neighborhood, Clinton's experience counts
From today's LA TIMES
February 10, 2008
Nick Frousakis went to his grave in December, and one of his most loyal customers, Raul Sousa, followed him into the ground the very next day, old age doing both of them in.
"Nobody wants to sit there now," said Diego Romero, pointing to where Sousa used to hold forth at Jim's Burgers, State and 1st in Boyle Heights.
But the gang still shows up most weekdays to carry on the tradition despite the absence of Frousakis, a Greek-born businessman who had the good sense to put tacos up on the board next to hamburgers.
They drink coffee from Styrofoam cups. They soak up the sun. And they talk.
Life, death, sports, women, politics.
It was the last of those subjects I wanted to hear about last week. Latinos turned out as never before in the California presidential primary, accounting for 30% of the Democratic vote. As a group, Latinos sent an early valentine to Hillary Clinton, voting for her by a 2-1 ratio.
I wanted to know why, but first I had to find some Clinton voters. So which candidate did these guys like?
"Clinton," three men said in unison when I sat down Thursday.
"Clinton," said three different men when I took a seat at the same table Friday.
Altogether, four of the six said they had actually voted. One is a legal resident but not a citizen, and the other just didn't make it to the polls.
The state's Latinos are overwhelmingly Democratic, and none of the Jim's crowd even considered voting for a Republican, even though Sen. John McCain supported a path to legal status for many illegal immigrants.
"They're for the greedy corporations," said retired landscaper Feliz Botello. "They don't care about us and our people."
He might get some disagreement from the estimated 10% of the state's Republican voters who happen to be Latino.
So why Clinton instead of Obama?
"El sabe menos [He knows less]," Roberto Luz, a mariachi, said in Spanish of Barack Obama.
"¿Que ha hecho, él? [What has he done?]," echoed Joaquin Vega, who used to run the auto repair shop across the street.
Most of the comments were similarly straightforward. It didn't hurt that L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa supported Clinton, said the men.
But if I had to list the top reasons the men liked Clinton over Obama or a Republican candidate, the order would go something like this:
She has more experience than Obama. The Clinton name is trusted. Times were good under Bill Clinton, and Hillary is cut from the same cloth. Too much money and too many lives are being wasted in Iraq while things fall apart at home.
Jaime Regalado of Cal State L.A.'s Pat Brown Institute told me by phone that some of Clinton's enemies on the right are seen as enemies of the Latino community, particularly on the subject of immigration. She was smart, Regalado said, to use Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in TV ads and link herself to the slain Kennedy's support for Cesar Chavez and farmworkers.
Regalado was surprised by just how strong the Latino turnout was. But in retrospect, he said, the gloomy economic news, the war and the possibility of ending Republican rule were something of a perfect storm, and Latinos were eager to make their voices heard.
"The last factor is that in the Latino community, as in all communities, there is a certain amount of prejudice," Regalado said, and some Latinos were probably more comfortable with a white woman than a black man.
Even a black man who said illegal immigrants should have driver's licenses and that immigrants can't be blamed for problems in some black communities?
Yes, and yes again.
"He's a very good speaker, and maybe he would be better than Clinton," said Vega, who agreed that younger Latinos seemed a little more inclined to connect with Obama. "But I like Clinton."
I pointed out to Vega, Bill Escarsega and Botello that they don't exactly come from a matriarchal culture. So how did these old-school caballeros suddenly get so comfortable with the idea of a woman in the White House?
"It's not black or white, male or female, it's experience," said Vega.
"My grandfather? Macho, macho, macho," said Botello. "My father? Macho, macho, macho.
"I don't believe in that B.S. anymore. You know why? I'm civilized. I went to school."
When the men talked about all the lives lost in Iraq, and Botello said his cousin was killed in combat, I reminded the kaffeeklatschers that Clinton had voted to support the war.
"And she should be held responsible," said Vega, but that doesn't mean she's not the best candidate.
"Bush lied," Botello charged. "Bush and Cheney lied to everybody, including Congress."
As we spoke, a Latin beat warped and wobbled out of a music shop across 1st Street, and a man came along pushing a battered old bicycle someone had just given him. It needed some love, he said, but it would be fine.
So who did he vote for?
"Clinton," he said immediately, and with that, the former first lady had swept the corner of 1st and State streets in Boyle Heights.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Debates, California, and Occidental's most famous absent alumni
In her speech today from New York headquarters, Hillary Clinton congratulated Obama on his delegate gains and expressed excitement to continue their debates now as the election season moves forward. According to CNN.com, Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson said the campaign has already accepted 4 invitations for this month on such forums as CNN and FOX (non-cable TV would also be appreciated by people like me who are holding on to their rabbit ears until the last moment).
I hope the Obama campaign makes a decision soon to participate in these debates. These are the best venues for voters to gather insight and information about those running. I also urge voters to attend rallies in their areas. I am registered on most of the major candidate websites for both parties, and get frequent updates on So Cal events. Although, I must admit, the Clinton crowd - both Hillary herself and her supporters - are much more organized in getting rallies and groups together locally. I was surprised to find out that Obama wasn't even at the recent UCLA event where Oprah Winfrey and Maria Shriver stumped for him. It's no wonder that California is voting overwhelmingly for Clinton (although less than half of the precints are reported thus far). In the past 3 weeks, I had at least 3 opportunities to see Hillary in person. I'm guessing that Obama knew his efforts would be better spent on TV ads, which were a-plenty round the clock yesterday. So goes political campaigning.
Now that our primary is over, I guess we won't see him anymore at all. All I can think of is...poor Occidental College! Obama attended the Eagle Rock school for 2 years (not 1, as I previously thought) and they bank on him as one their most notable Alumni. Couldn't he have made a trip out there? If he gets the nomination, I hope he doesn't forget them in his campaign.
I hope the Obama campaign makes a decision soon to participate in these debates. These are the best venues for voters to gather insight and information about those running. I also urge voters to attend rallies in their areas. I am registered on most of the major candidate websites for both parties, and get frequent updates on So Cal events. Although, I must admit, the Clinton crowd - both Hillary herself and her supporters - are much more organized in getting rallies and groups together locally. I was surprised to find out that Obama wasn't even at the recent UCLA event where Oprah Winfrey and Maria Shriver stumped for him. It's no wonder that California is voting overwhelmingly for Clinton (although less than half of the precints are reported thus far). In the past 3 weeks, I had at least 3 opportunities to see Hillary in person. I'm guessing that Obama knew his efforts would be better spent on TV ads, which were a-plenty round the clock yesterday. So goes political campaigning.
Now that our primary is over, I guess we won't see him anymore at all. All I can think of is...poor Occidental College! Obama attended the Eagle Rock school for 2 years (not 1, as I previously thought) and they bank on him as one their most notable Alumni. Couldn't he have made a trip out there? If he gets the nomination, I hope he doesn't forget them in his campaign.
Primary and Caucus Dates - We stil have a ways to go
2008 Presidential Primary/Caucus Calendar
JANUARY 2008
• January 3: Iowa
• January 5: Wyoming (R)
• January 8: New Hampshire
• January 15: Michigan
• January 19: Nevada, South Carolina (R)
• January 26: South Carolina (D)
• January 29: Florida
FEBRUARY 2008
• February 1: Maine (R)
• February 5: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho (D), Illinois, Kansas (D), Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico (D), New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah
• February 9: Louisiana, Washington (caucus), Kansas (R)
• February 10: Maine (D)
• February 12: District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia
• February 19: Hawaii (D)*, Washington (primary), Wisconsin
MARCH 2008
• March 4: Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont
• March 8: Wyoming (D)
• March 11: Mississippi
APRIL 2008
• April 22: Pennsylvania
MAY 2008
• May 6: Indiana, North Carolina
• May 13: Nebraska, West Virginia
• May 20: Kentucky, Oregon
• May 27: Idaho (R)
JUNE 2008
• June 3: Montana, New Mexico (R), South Dakota
*Taken from RocktheVote website
JANUARY 2008
• January 3: Iowa
• January 5: Wyoming (R)
• January 8: New Hampshire
• January 15: Michigan
• January 19: Nevada, South Carolina (R)
• January 26: South Carolina (D)
• January 29: Florida
FEBRUARY 2008
• February 1: Maine (R)
• February 5: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho (D), Illinois, Kansas (D), Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, New Jersey, New Mexico (D), New York, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Utah
• February 9: Louisiana, Washington (caucus), Kansas (R)
• February 10: Maine (D)
• February 12: District of Columbia, Maryland, Virginia
• February 19: Hawaii (D)*, Washington (primary), Wisconsin
MARCH 2008
• March 4: Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont
• March 8: Wyoming (D)
• March 11: Mississippi
APRIL 2008
• April 22: Pennsylvania
MAY 2008
• May 6: Indiana, North Carolina
• May 13: Nebraska, West Virginia
• May 20: Kentucky, Oregon
• May 27: Idaho (R)
JUNE 2008
• June 3: Montana, New Mexico (R), South Dakota
*Taken from RocktheVote website
Monday, February 4, 2008
A Hllary by any other name...
I firmly believe that Hillary Clinton would have still gotten involved in the political life had she been Hillary Rodham Gonzalez, or Hillary Rodham Bakker, or just plain Hillary Rodham. Her status as first lady to former President Clinton does not automatically lend her the credibility - her own intelligence and strength does that for her.
At a Superbowl pary yesterday, I got to talking politics with a group of largely older Iranian women (plus one older American gentleman - sorry Bernie, but you were it!). This one lady asked me whether I was supporting Hillary because she was a woman - whether that was important to me. I said that yes, that it was important. And, no, I would not have supported Diane Feinstein for a presidential bid, and probably not even Senator Boxer. I support Hillary. The fact that she is a woman adds to her qualifications and my support for her.
Let's face it, it's not easy being a woman. And for a country that supposedly espouses equal rights, this is still true of the US. After all, we can't soon forget that the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) did not pass nearly three decades ago. We also can't deny that other countries - even Pakistan - has had a woman leader and we have yet to take this next obvious step.
I also believe that women bring in a different conciousness to politics. Women are not the same as men, and equal rights does not translate into a woman reaching equality with a man. Why should women be encouraged to be like men? Why establish that men have set the bar and women need just to reach it? Why isn't it the other way around?
As women, we offer our own insights into the political discourse. Women are more intimately familiar with issues of elder parent care (Hillary's mother lives them). Women are more involved in the raising, education and healthcare of children and their families. Women bring in this extra heightened understanding of issues that are so important to daily life. The personal is political.
Also, I will be honnest with you, I want a woman president. I need a woman president. But it's not only me. It's scores of young girls and young women who are led to believe that they can accomplish anything. Really? How can we back this up when our country can not even train, empower and elect a woman president? To make change, we have to create change that will not only affect politics but people. Let's do this.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Rally venues reveal difference in candidates
I'm just glad to point out the following difference in the two democratic front-runners: While Obama spoke in Pauley Pavillion at highly-ranked UCLA in Westwood, Hillary Clinton has been speaking in humbler Cal State venues from the Northridge to Los Angeles campuses. Chelsea was in Cal State Dominquez Hills, and Bill was in a south central Church. The difference is significant and I'm glad to see Hillary speaking at the Cal States and exposing these deserving schools to the media.
By the way, why doesn't Obama do a favor to Occidental College, his freshmen-year alma mater, and speak at the Eagle Rock university?
By the way, why doesn't Obama do a favor to Occidental College, his freshmen-year alma mater, and speak at the Eagle Rock university?
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Dolores Huerta supports Hillary
Dolores Huerta, labor leader and activist, supports Hillary Clinton for the democratic nomination. I remember seeing Dolores Huerta at Pitzer College 8 years ago. Si se puede!
Monday, January 28, 2008
Ted Kennedy wants change? Leave the Senate!
The Kennedy endorsement of Barack Obama is this season's juiciest hipocrisies in presidential endorsements. Ted Kennedy - the head of one of this country's oldest and most scandalous political dynasties - endorses Obama as a candidate of change.
Hello?! Senator Kennedy has been on the Senate for over 40 years. If he really advocates change, he needs to step down and allow another prospective young democrat to run for his seat. Don't advocate Obama as a "change" candidate when you are part and parcel of this country's ultimate political royal families. If you support Obama - don't say it's because he reminds you of your father, Caroline - Instead, point to proposed measures or historical precedent in his legislative history to recommend him. I wish Obama supporters would rely on their candidate's measurable merits, instead of this overhyped and drawn-out gimmick of change. It may work for a moment, but not for the long haul.
Don't flaunt him as a candidate of ideas and hope, if you don't back it.
Really want a change? Let's see a viable woman candidate on the democratic ticket. Now that would be a change.
Hello?! Senator Kennedy has been on the Senate for over 40 years. If he really advocates change, he needs to step down and allow another prospective young democrat to run for his seat. Don't advocate Obama as a "change" candidate when you are part and parcel of this country's ultimate political royal families. If you support Obama - don't say it's because he reminds you of your father, Caroline - Instead, point to proposed measures or historical precedent in his legislative history to recommend him. I wish Obama supporters would rely on their candidate's measurable merits, instead of this overhyped and drawn-out gimmick of change. It may work for a moment, but not for the long haul.
Don't flaunt him as a candidate of ideas and hope, if you don't back it.
Really want a change? Let's see a viable woman candidate on the democratic ticket. Now that would be a change.
LGBT OUT for Hillary
LGBT OUT for Hillary
& Friends
Please join
Congresswoman Hilda L. Solis
Eric Bauman, Chair of the Los Angeles County Democratic Party,
Helping Heroes Productions, and local LGBT Leaders
in support of
Hillary Clinton for President
East Los Angeles Location
Wednesday, January 30th, 2008
6:00 p.m.
Eclipse De Mexico
4512 E. Cesar Chavez Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90022
Please R.S.V.P. to Joseph at 323/268-9442 or jopallan@gmail.com.
Refreshments will be served. * Parking is available behind the building.
After the program, we will be phoning in East Los Angeles and the San Gabriel Valley and asking them to vote for
Senator Clinton to be the next President of the United States. Let's make history together!
& Friends
Please join
Congresswoman Hilda L. Solis
Eric Bauman, Chair of the Los Angeles County Democratic Party,
Helping Heroes Productions, and local LGBT Leaders
in support of
Hillary Clinton for President
East Los Angeles Location
Wednesday, January 30th, 2008
6:00 p.m.
Eclipse De Mexico
4512 E. Cesar Chavez Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90022
Please R.S.V.P. to Joseph at 323/268-9442 or jopallan@gmail.com.
Refreshments will be served. * Parking is available behind the building.
After the program, we will be phoning in East Los Angeles and the San Gabriel Valley and asking them to vote for
Senator Clinton to be the next President of the United States. Let's make history together!
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Hillary Clinton impresses at electrical union training site in the city of Commerce on Friday
On Friday, I drove down to Commerce to see Hillary Clinton at the IBEW-ETI Training Site in Commerce. There were about 300 of us plus many from the local electrical workers union in addition to plenty of camera persons and members of the media. Mayor Villaraigosa, Speaker Fabian Nunez, Lt. Governor Garimendi and even Chelsea Clinton were also present. My ticket to fame was that I sat at the top bleachers, about 10 feet from the stage, and the man next to me got up and yelled" Hillary will you marry me!". My uncle later told me that he heard that sound byte on the radio.
I was very impressed by Hillary Clinton - her smarts, her ability to plan and the organization of her ideas - She spoke practically and not idealistically. She truly impresses as a politician and legislator - and no debate or soundbyte can adequately cover the intelligence and pragmatism she delivers in person. I saw Mitt Romney a few months ago and these two are like night and day. Romney really played to a mob mentality and spoke in rhetoric and spewed populist conversative messages that made me feel itchy just being in the room. Clinton, on the other hand, speaks like a professor - clearly and intelligently and straight to the point - There's no sugar-coating with her.
I was very glad she addressed her stance on the Revolutionary Guard in Iran (in response to an audience question) and distinguished the roles of the clergy vs. president in the Islamic Republic in Iran and that country's role in promoting terrorism abroad. Mostly, I admired her pragmatism and the so-called Stimulus Plan she put forth. Her plan addressed the importance of conservation and the promotion of alternative energy sources especially in the expansion of what she called "green collar jobs". She also would expand unemployment insurance to those who require it, and offer the health insurance packages available to members of Congress to the public at large. For a complete transcript of the event (applause and cheering witheld), there is a link on her website: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/speech/view/?id=5143
Saturday, January 5, 2008
New Hampshire Debates - Applause for Clinton's bid for "change" as first woman president
There was a major shift in energy between the republicans and the democrats during the New Hampshire debates tonight. During round one, the republicans were largely focused and well-spoken, even Ron Paul, who everyone else snickered at. For the republicans, I was most impressed with Huckabee's knowledge of world affairs, his eloquence and his tempered manners - I am surprised at myself for being impressed with him since I know his religiously-fueled politics are not my cup of tea. McCain also came across well, which I think he always does.
During round two, all of candidates looked tired, and frankly, their lack of energy bored me. I don't blame them. After days and days of campaiging in Iowa and now New Hampshire, they all looked like they could use a nap. Also, Richardson completely distracts from the top three frontrunners. He needs to go back to New Mexico and focus on his UFO-museum. His myopia in foreign affairs makes him completely unsuitable for world politics.
None of the democrats jazzed me up. I was looking to be "fired up" by Obama, but instead found his words to be labored, although he does have a nice voice. He also looked so aged for a man only in his late fourties.
Clinton had some good moments (she also looked better than Obama). During the change vs. experience discussion, she rightly said that having a woman president presents a change in government contrary to anything the US has elected before. I'm glad she said it, because commentators have mentioned the fact that Obama would be the first Black president - a phenomenal feat for US standards - whereas in my opinion, having the first woman president would be an even greater achievement. I think people almost forget that Clinton is a woman - her long history in the political eye seem to connect her more to her husband than her own gender.
I look forward to seeing the results in New Hampshire. Based on the debates this evening, I'm more interested in the outcome for the republicans than the democrats.
During round two, all of candidates looked tired, and frankly, their lack of energy bored me. I don't blame them. After days and days of campaiging in Iowa and now New Hampshire, they all looked like they could use a nap. Also, Richardson completely distracts from the top three frontrunners. He needs to go back to New Mexico and focus on his UFO-museum. His myopia in foreign affairs makes him completely unsuitable for world politics.
None of the democrats jazzed me up. I was looking to be "fired up" by Obama, but instead found his words to be labored, although he does have a nice voice. He also looked so aged for a man only in his late fourties.
Clinton had some good moments (she also looked better than Obama). During the change vs. experience discussion, she rightly said that having a woman president presents a change in government contrary to anything the US has elected before. I'm glad she said it, because commentators have mentioned the fact that Obama would be the first Black president - a phenomenal feat for US standards - whereas in my opinion, having the first woman president would be an even greater achievement. I think people almost forget that Clinton is a woman - her long history in the political eye seem to connect her more to her husband than her own gender.
I look forward to seeing the results in New Hampshire. Based on the debates this evening, I'm more interested in the outcome for the republicans than the democrats.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
