I don't want to sound apologetic for Putin and I do believe that he's acting belligerent, but does anyone else get the the feeling that we're trying to create conflict? Is the right preparing for life after Iraq? When we try to stop talking about Muslim terrorism so that we can ignore our failure, who will we hate then? Russia seems good. I feel like Chavez might fight the bill. But I think Chavez is a LOT more ridiculous! Russia could be dangerous. If they wanted to be! I really don't think Putin wants animosity again.... Unless he feels his grip slipping....
Republicans:
Brownback: Doesn't believe in evolution and I think he was in Leap of Faith with Steve Martin about sleazy fake pastors.
Huckabee: Also doesn't believe, but at least he wants to appear friendly. HE CALLED HOMOSEXUALITY AN "ATTITUDE"! What a bigot. His answer on abortion was pretty good. He attached abortion to a culture of life that includes respect for the poor. Well done, Governor Bigot.
Hunter: Actually talked about reaching out to the Democrats
Gilmore: Somewhat reasonable. For a Republican.
Tommy Thompson: Hilarious! Wonderful attitude supporting preventative health care!
Tancredo: Insane on immigration. Great against Bush.
Romney: He's more boring than John Kerry! (and resembles him in many ways) Dumb talking points. He makes the same talking-point silly errors as Richardson. Totally ignores the question. I don't think he has any chance WHATSOEVER.
Giuliani: Strange. He says some things and I wanna scream and other times, I think: Thank god, because he'll probably win his nomination, so at least he's not as bad as the others. He was Associate Attorney General?! Is that below a Deputy Attorney General? He's also a pragmatist. He's not quite as psychotic as he seems. He's a good speaker too. I think he's a formidable candidate. His conflation of environmental health and business health sounded downright Obama-esque. His health-care rant sounded good as a sound byte, but too bad he's way on the right. At least he didn't avoid the issue.
McCain: I feel he's a practical guy who started out saying what people wanna hear. He lost, and now he's trying to be a strange mixture of frankness and lies. HOWEVER. He is one of two to not be TO THE RIGHT of the immigration law! and also singularly, seemed (at least half) against English as an official language. Kudos on that.
Paul: Of course I find him interesting. I think I like him more than any of the other Republicans, mostly because he has a unified idea of what he stands for. However, he did not attack Don't Ask, Don't Tell. He didn't speak against Creationism [sic], but rather only attacked it at as unconstitutional AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. However, he had an amazing, better even than any answer in the Democratic debate on the most important moral issue. He answered that the biggest problem was "the acceptance just recently that we now promote pre-emptive war. I do not believe that's part of the American tradition." He elaborated and it sent chills up my spine.
I think they all sound silly. The ones who don't believe in evolution should leave. I think Tancredo's in the KKK. That leaves Hunter, Gilmore, Paul and Thomspon in the second tier and Giuliani, Romney and McCain in the top tier.
It seems blatantly clear to me, much more so than in the Democratic Party that with the current 10, meaning without Fred Thompson, that Rudy Giuliani is the only guy that at the moment, seems even half presidential. McCain and Paul are the most intelligent, but Giuliani and Paul are the speakers. Paul sounds too much like a dude (albeit a very intelligent one) in a coffee shop.
I'd say Giuliani, McCain and Paul were the only people I even cared about (except I think Tommy Thompson is funny) watching. Giuliani won and is the biggest snake. McCain might actually turn out to be somewhat reasonable (I know everyone will hate me on that one) and Paul seems to be a burgeoning cult-leader (what's the deal with that).
The Republicans are really awful though. All of them. I feel like it's a clear vote: Democrat and hopefully leave the fake war (War on Terror, not Iraq) or Republican and 8 more years of 1984.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Barack Obama
I have to be honest. I did not change my mind about Obama ONLY after seeing the debates instead of just reading the transcript. I also was so annoyed at Obama, that I wrote to a friend of mine from Chicago who is an enormous Obama-backer. I will present that discussion here, so you can see more of what has changed my mind. My simplistic thinking is actually a little embarassing to me, but also don't agree with everything my friend said. Obama is not the greatest candidate ever, but after hearing him speak again and discussing some issues he does appear to be the best of those who have a chance. My friend's response to Obama's war stance is especially helpful.
My orignial questions followed by his responses:
John: 1) He claims that he has opposed the war from the start. He was,however, not in the United States government in order to register hisobjection. As a state senator, though, he did oppose the war.However, he did represent Chicago within Illinois. Was he reallygoing to support the war? It seems to me he's just playing on theignorance of the masses, attempting to win points, when he wasn't eventhere.
Peter: 1) When Obama opposed the war, he was already a candidate for the United States Senate. But he made a number of appearances at anti-war rallies, gave speeches against the war, and he was the only candidate for Senate to do so in the Democratic primary (he was the underdog against a wealthy self-funded businessman on the one hand and the son of an old school Chicago machine-politician on the other)... Remember this was when the war was at 80% popularity and Democratic politicians like Edwards and Clinton were loathe to speak against it. Illinois was also just in the process of turning into a blue state. The governor was Republican and the seat for which Obama was running was an open Republican seat. He had reasonably good reason to believe he could be burying his political career by speaking out against the war at a time when it was so popular. Here's a solid video mash-up of various statements on the Iraq war: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhpKmQCCwB8. Now when Obama arrived in the US Senate in 2004, he at first voted for appropriations bills, on the grounds that he thought that no matter how bad an idea the war was, the cost of failure was too great. He said that he would give the situation six months to see if there was any improvement, and when there wasn't any, he came out in favor of withdrawing the troops. (This can be controversial on the left but it happens to match up with my own position and I think it's the most responsible one. I was against the war, participated in protests, but in 2003/2004 I also had no idea what should happen next --- withdrawing immediately after we had already committed the mistake and plunged the country into chaos seemed silly. I've come around to withdrawal basically because it seems to me that our presence there only exacerbates the situation.) And I beg you to read his speech from 2002 here: http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php. It's a flaming speech.
John: 2) This immigration plan is absolutely ludicrous, yet he supports it. He also voted on a bill last year to build a wall on the US/Mexicanborder. I find that disgusting. However, I realize that leaves me with just Kucinich who didn't.
Peter: 2) He supported the wall with Mexico bill as part of the compromise to get a full immigration bill, as did many Democratic senators, including Biden, Clinton, Kennedy, etc. The idea is that in order to get any Republican votes, there needed to be an "effort" to seal the border. And keep in mind, the wall is to be 700-odd miles in total but certainly not contiguous. The idea was for snippets of fenceline in various urban areas. (None of this fence has yet to be constructed, and the funds may be cut off now that there's a Democratic majority.) As far as the new version of the immigration bill this year, Obama has criticized certain aspects of it sharply and he hasn't come out in favor of its current form. (Democrats are unhappy particularly with the portion that rewrites future immigration policy to focus on education/skill level rather than family relations.) Obama is a pragmatist on this. There are certain Democrats and certain Republicans in the Senate that won't support any immigration bill at all. It's such a controversial issue that you need 60 votes to pass anything since it will almost certainly be filibustered. With Tim Johnson in the hospital, the Dems have 50 votes, and then they lose all the senators with strong union backing who oppose any temporary worker program on the grounds that it lowers wages. The only way they can pass anything at all is by picking up a substantial number of Republican votes from conservative border-state people like Jon Cornyn of Texas and your own dear John Kyl of Arizona. Otherwise nothing will ever be passed. And those votes can be bought if you provide them at least with the pretense that in the future illegal immigration will be cracked down upon. Obviously some sort of way of legalizing the twelve million illegal immigrants already in the country needs to take place. And this is the democratic system that we have, it's how the Senate works: there are a tremendous number of compromises that are necessary to get us there.
John: 3) He advocated the assassination of Osama Bin Laden even if thatmeant collateral damage.
Peter: 3) As far as the assassination of Osama bin Laden, I'm not so sure it counts as an assassination. American troops are in constant conflict with Taliban and al Qaeda forces. How is bombing a camp in which bin Laden is present any different? And obviously in the course of the CNN debate yesterday, all the candidates argued that it depended on the number of causalities. I would point out that Obama was the only candidate answering the question about a hypothetical terrorist attack who emphasized, first, the emergency response, then ensuring there would be no further attacks, third, figuring out who had committed the attack, and only then launch a response --- the other candidates tripped over themselves to talk about how swiftly they would retaliate. Obama, on the other hand, emphasized due process --- and was criticized soundly for it.
John: 4) His health-care plan, while not even being universal, keeps in lace much of the apparatus of the insurance companies and their money-grubbing practices and will be more expensive.
Peter: 4) On health care, Obama chose, like Edwards, not to go with single payer. He instead decided to focus on saving health care costs through expanding preventative care. He also proposed mandatory health care for minors. To quote the New Yorker article, in which he was asked why he didn't go for single payer:
"If you're starting from scratch," he says, "then a single-payer system"—a government-managed system like Canada's, which disconnects health insurance from employment—"would probably make sense. But we've got all these legacy systems in place, and managing the transition, as well as adjusting the culture to a different system, would be difficult to pull off. So we may need a system that's not so disruptive that people feel like suddenly what they've known for most of their lives is thrown by the wayside." I think this is a fair position. It's certainly the most realistic position, and one around which there is a growing consensus. States like Massachusetts and California (both under Republican governors) are already experimenting with it. The idea is to make health insurance like car insurance, to phase in making it mandatory for all, with the idea that a broader health system in which illness is treated preventatively is actually cheaper than one in which the uninsured develop catastrophic illnesses and require surgery. Keep in mind, switching to single payer would be essentially eliminating the entire health care industry (companies in the hundreds of billions of dollars and with hundreds of thousands of employees) today and building it from scratch. It isn't realistic on a national level. You run into the same problem of partly of simply not having the votes in the Senate --- if you can't find more than 51 votes to end the Iraq war now, when it's almost political suicide (proven by '06) for Republicans to continue to vote to support it, how will you ever get 60 to move to single payer? There was a great editorial in the New York Times about this move towards something like Obama's plan:
"And if what you care about is which candidate can one-up the others, it is rather disappointing. But if what you care about is whether, after the 2008 election, we'll be in a position to finally stop the health systems' downward spiral, the similarity of the emerging proposals is exactly what's interesting. I don't think you can call it a consensus, but there is nonetheless a road forward being paved and a growing number of people from across the political spectrum are on it — not just presidential candidates, but governors from California to Pennsylvania, unions and businesses like Safeway, ATT and Pepsi.
This is what that road looks like. It is not single-payer. It instead follows the lead of European countries ranging from the Netherlands to Switzerland to Germany that provide universal coverage (and more doctors, hospitals and access to primary care) through multiple private insurers while spending less money than we do. The proposals all define basic benefits that insurers must offer without penalty for pre-existing conditions. They cover not just expensive sickness care, but also preventive care and cost-saving programs to give patients better control of chronic illnesses like diabetes and asthma.
We'd have a choice of competing private plans, and, with Edwards and Obama, a Medicare-like public option, too. An income-related federal subsidy or voucher would help individuals pay for that coverage. And the proposals also embrace what's been called shared responsibility — requiring that individuals buy health insurance (at minimum for their children) and that employers bigger than 10 or 15 employees either provide health benefits or pay into a subsidy fund."
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/05/31/opinion/31gawande.html
To my mind, to propose any other plan is to simply propose doing nothing. It's not like Obama doesn't like the idea of a single payer plan, or that he hasn't considered it. It's that he just doesn't think it's feasible to implement it. Now, the major difference between Edwards and Obama on the plan is that Edwards mandates that all individuals buy the plan. Obama feels that the government should stick to putting together the plan, making it affordable, and helping people purchase it --- and only then when after a trial period, there are still significant gaps, would he talk about making it mandatory.
Obviously there is no such thing as a universal health care plan... Even Massachusetts only reaches in theory 97-98 percent. Edwards plan is no different. The idea is to make the gap as small as possible, and to do it by making health care as cheap as possible --- through requiring plans to cover preventative care, through allowing the importation of cheaper prescription drugs (via canada for example), and through subsidizing technology/better record-keeping to reduce medical error and make it more efficient.
John: 5) He seems to have no ability to be exciting in any way. He standsthere saying almost exactly what Hillary Clinton says, biding his timefor when it's clear it's down to the two of them.
Peter: 5) It's not his style to pound the podium. He's a thoughtful guy and has a subdued style. It's not that he can't give a rousing speech: obviously he did in 2004 at the convention.
Obama's background is in community organizing. He's spent his entire career as a civil rights attorney and an urban community organizer. Obviously he cares about the poor and is motivated by ameliorating it. It's what he does. I think, frankly, that Obama is the only candidate in the Democratic field who would have the ability to be a transformational figure in American politics and to produce movement on health care and global warming. Clinton or Edwards would get into office and be immediately stymied by Congress. He is the best public speaker the party has produced in years. He isn't great at televised debates yet --- but in what sense is that skill important exactly? --- especially as it has so little impact on the outcome of a race? He can captivate crowds. He generates enthusiasm. In Illinois, there are countless examples where he led efforts on the hot button issues of the day and broke logjams to produce legislation: he eliminated racial profiling, set up required video-taping of police interrogations of murder suspects, set up death penalty reform, and pushed forward the first campaign finance reform in two decades. With the example of the mandantory video-taping, he produced a bill that the police officer's union opposed and the then-Democratic governor threatened with a veto, and he not only passed it, but he passed it unanimously. When I worked for the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless, co-workers would drive down to the state capital in Springfield and would come back beaming about a certain young state senator.It is a radical and audacious prospect: To elect a president who has spent his life as a community organizer, civil rights attorney, and constitutional law professor, who has a record on behalf of the poor and in producing consensus, instead of electing one who has spent a couple decades in Congress (and probably has too many enemies in Congress, and is too caught up in old battles, to produce any movement on the things I care about). Anyway, those are some thoughts. See what you think, Peter p.s. If you still need some convincing, I absolutely love Obama's stump speech during the 2006 campaign on behalf of other candidates. My favorite speech of his is here on video: http://home.ourfuture.org/videos/take-back-america-2006/senator-barack-obama.html
THANKS PETER!
My orignial questions followed by his responses:
John: 1) He claims that he has opposed the war from the start. He was,however, not in the United States government in order to register hisobjection. As a state senator, though, he did oppose the war.However, he did represent Chicago within Illinois. Was he reallygoing to support the war? It seems to me he's just playing on theignorance of the masses, attempting to win points, when he wasn't eventhere.
Peter: 1) When Obama opposed the war, he was already a candidate for the United States Senate. But he made a number of appearances at anti-war rallies, gave speeches against the war, and he was the only candidate for Senate to do so in the Democratic primary (he was the underdog against a wealthy self-funded businessman on the one hand and the son of an old school Chicago machine-politician on the other)... Remember this was when the war was at 80% popularity and Democratic politicians like Edwards and Clinton were loathe to speak against it. Illinois was also just in the process of turning into a blue state. The governor was Republican and the seat for which Obama was running was an open Republican seat. He had reasonably good reason to believe he could be burying his political career by speaking out against the war at a time when it was so popular. Here's a solid video mash-up of various statements on the Iraq war: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhpKmQCCwB8. Now when Obama arrived in the US Senate in 2004, he at first voted for appropriations bills, on the grounds that he thought that no matter how bad an idea the war was, the cost of failure was too great. He said that he would give the situation six months to see if there was any improvement, and when there wasn't any, he came out in favor of withdrawing the troops. (This can be controversial on the left but it happens to match up with my own position and I think it's the most responsible one. I was against the war, participated in protests, but in 2003/2004 I also had no idea what should happen next --- withdrawing immediately after we had already committed the mistake and plunged the country into chaos seemed silly. I've come around to withdrawal basically because it seems to me that our presence there only exacerbates the situation.) And I beg you to read his speech from 2002 here: http://www.barackobama.com/2002/10/02/remarks_of_illinois_state_sen.php. It's a flaming speech.
John: 2) This immigration plan is absolutely ludicrous, yet he supports it. He also voted on a bill last year to build a wall on the US/Mexicanborder. I find that disgusting. However, I realize that leaves me with just Kucinich who didn't.
Peter: 2) He supported the wall with Mexico bill as part of the compromise to get a full immigration bill, as did many Democratic senators, including Biden, Clinton, Kennedy, etc. The idea is that in order to get any Republican votes, there needed to be an "effort" to seal the border. And keep in mind, the wall is to be 700-odd miles in total but certainly not contiguous. The idea was for snippets of fenceline in various urban areas. (None of this fence has yet to be constructed, and the funds may be cut off now that there's a Democratic majority.) As far as the new version of the immigration bill this year, Obama has criticized certain aspects of it sharply and he hasn't come out in favor of its current form. (Democrats are unhappy particularly with the portion that rewrites future immigration policy to focus on education/skill level rather than family relations.) Obama is a pragmatist on this. There are certain Democrats and certain Republicans in the Senate that won't support any immigration bill at all. It's such a controversial issue that you need 60 votes to pass anything since it will almost certainly be filibustered. With Tim Johnson in the hospital, the Dems have 50 votes, and then they lose all the senators with strong union backing who oppose any temporary worker program on the grounds that it lowers wages. The only way they can pass anything at all is by picking up a substantial number of Republican votes from conservative border-state people like Jon Cornyn of Texas and your own dear John Kyl of Arizona. Otherwise nothing will ever be passed. And those votes can be bought if you provide them at least with the pretense that in the future illegal immigration will be cracked down upon. Obviously some sort of way of legalizing the twelve million illegal immigrants already in the country needs to take place. And this is the democratic system that we have, it's how the Senate works: there are a tremendous number of compromises that are necessary to get us there.
John: 3) He advocated the assassination of Osama Bin Laden even if thatmeant collateral damage.
Peter: 3) As far as the assassination of Osama bin Laden, I'm not so sure it counts as an assassination. American troops are in constant conflict with Taliban and al Qaeda forces. How is bombing a camp in which bin Laden is present any different? And obviously in the course of the CNN debate yesterday, all the candidates argued that it depended on the number of causalities. I would point out that Obama was the only candidate answering the question about a hypothetical terrorist attack who emphasized, first, the emergency response, then ensuring there would be no further attacks, third, figuring out who had committed the attack, and only then launch a response --- the other candidates tripped over themselves to talk about how swiftly they would retaliate. Obama, on the other hand, emphasized due process --- and was criticized soundly for it.
John: 4) His health-care plan, while not even being universal, keeps in lace much of the apparatus of the insurance companies and their money-grubbing practices and will be more expensive.
Peter: 4) On health care, Obama chose, like Edwards, not to go with single payer. He instead decided to focus on saving health care costs through expanding preventative care. He also proposed mandatory health care for minors. To quote the New Yorker article, in which he was asked why he didn't go for single payer:
"If you're starting from scratch," he says, "then a single-payer system"—a government-managed system like Canada's, which disconnects health insurance from employment—"would probably make sense. But we've got all these legacy systems in place, and managing the transition, as well as adjusting the culture to a different system, would be difficult to pull off. So we may need a system that's not so disruptive that people feel like suddenly what they've known for most of their lives is thrown by the wayside." I think this is a fair position. It's certainly the most realistic position, and one around which there is a growing consensus. States like Massachusetts and California (both under Republican governors) are already experimenting with it. The idea is to make health insurance like car insurance, to phase in making it mandatory for all, with the idea that a broader health system in which illness is treated preventatively is actually cheaper than one in which the uninsured develop catastrophic illnesses and require surgery. Keep in mind, switching to single payer would be essentially eliminating the entire health care industry (companies in the hundreds of billions of dollars and with hundreds of thousands of employees) today and building it from scratch. It isn't realistic on a national level. You run into the same problem of partly of simply not having the votes in the Senate --- if you can't find more than 51 votes to end the Iraq war now, when it's almost political suicide (proven by '06) for Republicans to continue to vote to support it, how will you ever get 60 to move to single payer? There was a great editorial in the New York Times about this move towards something like Obama's plan:
"And if what you care about is which candidate can one-up the others, it is rather disappointing. But if what you care about is whether, after the 2008 election, we'll be in a position to finally stop the health systems' downward spiral, the similarity of the emerging proposals is exactly what's interesting. I don't think you can call it a consensus, but there is nonetheless a road forward being paved and a growing number of people from across the political spectrum are on it — not just presidential candidates, but governors from California to Pennsylvania, unions and businesses like Safeway, ATT and Pepsi.
This is what that road looks like. It is not single-payer. It instead follows the lead of European countries ranging from the Netherlands to Switzerland to Germany that provide universal coverage (and more doctors, hospitals and access to primary care) through multiple private insurers while spending less money than we do. The proposals all define basic benefits that insurers must offer without penalty for pre-existing conditions. They cover not just expensive sickness care, but also preventive care and cost-saving programs to give patients better control of chronic illnesses like diabetes and asthma.
We'd have a choice of competing private plans, and, with Edwards and Obama, a Medicare-like public option, too. An income-related federal subsidy or voucher would help individuals pay for that coverage. And the proposals also embrace what's been called shared responsibility — requiring that individuals buy health insurance (at minimum for their children) and that employers bigger than 10 or 15 employees either provide health benefits or pay into a subsidy fund."
http://select.nytimes.com/2007/05/31/opinion/31gawande.html
To my mind, to propose any other plan is to simply propose doing nothing. It's not like Obama doesn't like the idea of a single payer plan, or that he hasn't considered it. It's that he just doesn't think it's feasible to implement it. Now, the major difference between Edwards and Obama on the plan is that Edwards mandates that all individuals buy the plan. Obama feels that the government should stick to putting together the plan, making it affordable, and helping people purchase it --- and only then when after a trial period, there are still significant gaps, would he talk about making it mandatory.
Obviously there is no such thing as a universal health care plan... Even Massachusetts only reaches in theory 97-98 percent. Edwards plan is no different. The idea is to make the gap as small as possible, and to do it by making health care as cheap as possible --- through requiring plans to cover preventative care, through allowing the importation of cheaper prescription drugs (via canada for example), and through subsidizing technology/better record-keeping to reduce medical error and make it more efficient.
John: 5) He seems to have no ability to be exciting in any way. He standsthere saying almost exactly what Hillary Clinton says, biding his timefor when it's clear it's down to the two of them.
Peter: 5) It's not his style to pound the podium. He's a thoughtful guy and has a subdued style. It's not that he can't give a rousing speech: obviously he did in 2004 at the convention.
Obama's background is in community organizing. He's spent his entire career as a civil rights attorney and an urban community organizer. Obviously he cares about the poor and is motivated by ameliorating it. It's what he does. I think, frankly, that Obama is the only candidate in the Democratic field who would have the ability to be a transformational figure in American politics and to produce movement on health care and global warming. Clinton or Edwards would get into office and be immediately stymied by Congress. He is the best public speaker the party has produced in years. He isn't great at televised debates yet --- but in what sense is that skill important exactly? --- especially as it has so little impact on the outcome of a race? He can captivate crowds. He generates enthusiasm. In Illinois, there are countless examples where he led efforts on the hot button issues of the day and broke logjams to produce legislation: he eliminated racial profiling, set up required video-taping of police interrogations of murder suspects, set up death penalty reform, and pushed forward the first campaign finance reform in two decades. With the example of the mandantory video-taping, he produced a bill that the police officer's union opposed and the then-Democratic governor threatened with a veto, and he not only passed it, but he passed it unanimously. When I worked for the Chicago Coalition for the Homeless, co-workers would drive down to the state capital in Springfield and would come back beaming about a certain young state senator.It is a radical and audacious prospect: To elect a president who has spent his life as a community organizer, civil rights attorney, and constitutional law professor, who has a record on behalf of the poor and in producing consensus, instead of electing one who has spent a couple decades in Congress (and probably has too many enemies in Congress, and is too caught up in old battles, to produce any movement on the things I care about). Anyway, those are some thoughts. See what you think, Peter p.s. If you still need some convincing, I absolutely love Obama's stump speech during the 2006 campaign on behalf of other candidates. My favorite speech of his is here on video: http://home.ourfuture.org/videos/take-back-america-2006/senator-barack-obama.html
THANKS PETER!
The Debates, part II
Through the magic of Youtube, I watched the debates (search for democratic debates (or debate, not sure) and then on the left side of the screen sort by date added). What a different picture I saw! Speaking abilities and/or good/bad acting skills seem to convey something completely different than mere words. Following are briefer impressions based on the video:
Gravel: Sad, not pathetic. He is so right on most things, and seems so frustrated. No chance, but I feel for him.
Richardson: Frighteningly awful. Talking points only, and could not for one second answer any of the questions.
Dodd: Much better than I had thought. But I will never forget his refusal to accept the reality of blowback while on Bill Maher's show.
Biden: Wow. He was screaming, "While we talk, 50,000 more people are going to die!" about Darfur. Passion. Candor. Not so much with me on every issue like Kucinich, but I like him.
Kucinich: Wonderful. Better than 4 years ago. He will hopefully pull the Democrats with a chance a little to the left.
Clinton: Presidential, but horribly arrogant. Her laughing was grating on my brain. Not quite as evasive as I had thought. She might actually have a chance with the Republicans.
Edwards: Not quite as powerful as I had thought, but he was good. He helped himself. But his attack was dulled by Kucinich's attack. His, "let's get real about this" was almost funny when Kucinich attacked all of them.
Obama: I completely changed my mind on him after seeing him speak. He was not grandiose. He does not have the greatest lines. But dear lord, is he aware of the complexity of the issues. He is actually speaking about reality, rather than spewing feel-good crap like Hillary. He's the smartest one up there (except for maybe Biden) and most importantly, something that came accross again and again: he's practical. He's not going to pander to the right like Clinton. He pushes all the right buttons, to prove to the morons (those that listen only for keywords) that he "supports the troops", that he's religious and that's he's strong on defense, but he is not pandering. I was too blinded by his keyword-dropping while reading the transcripts, that I did not recognize it as only a necessity of the situation.
Gravel, Richardson and Dodd are useless for various reasons. Kucinich is a perfect foil for the front-runners, but he's impractical and he has no chance. I would like to see the other FOUR considered as the front-runners: Biden, Obama, Clinton and Edwards. I think there are two groups, the leaders who know they can't be on the offensive (Clinton and Obama) and the second tier, who have to be on the offensive (Biden and Edwards). I like Biden and Obama far more than their (according to my tier-system) counterparts Clinton and Edwards. I like all of them more than Clinton. I think that in reality only Hillary and Barack have a chance to get the nomination and that Barack has a far better chance of winning against the Republicans than Hillary.
So, as of right now, practically, I want Obama (I know it's a drastic change). Less practically, but with a small chance, I want Biden. And theoretically I want Kucinich.
I still want Gore, but I'm not as depressed about the field of candidates as after reading their statements.
God help us all tonight with the fascist nutjobs spouting their rhetoric on the other side tonight at 4pm pacific time.
Gravel: Sad, not pathetic. He is so right on most things, and seems so frustrated. No chance, but I feel for him.
Richardson: Frighteningly awful. Talking points only, and could not for one second answer any of the questions.
Dodd: Much better than I had thought. But I will never forget his refusal to accept the reality of blowback while on Bill Maher's show.
Biden: Wow. He was screaming, "While we talk, 50,000 more people are going to die!" about Darfur. Passion. Candor. Not so much with me on every issue like Kucinich, but I like him.
Kucinich: Wonderful. Better than 4 years ago. He will hopefully pull the Democrats with a chance a little to the left.
Clinton: Presidential, but horribly arrogant. Her laughing was grating on my brain. Not quite as evasive as I had thought. She might actually have a chance with the Republicans.
Edwards: Not quite as powerful as I had thought, but he was good. He helped himself. But his attack was dulled by Kucinich's attack. His, "let's get real about this" was almost funny when Kucinich attacked all of them.
Obama: I completely changed my mind on him after seeing him speak. He was not grandiose. He does not have the greatest lines. But dear lord, is he aware of the complexity of the issues. He is actually speaking about reality, rather than spewing feel-good crap like Hillary. He's the smartest one up there (except for maybe Biden) and most importantly, something that came accross again and again: he's practical. He's not going to pander to the right like Clinton. He pushes all the right buttons, to prove to the morons (those that listen only for keywords) that he "supports the troops", that he's religious and that's he's strong on defense, but he is not pandering. I was too blinded by his keyword-dropping while reading the transcripts, that I did not recognize it as only a necessity of the situation.
Gravel, Richardson and Dodd are useless for various reasons. Kucinich is a perfect foil for the front-runners, but he's impractical and he has no chance. I would like to see the other FOUR considered as the front-runners: Biden, Obama, Clinton and Edwards. I think there are two groups, the leaders who know they can't be on the offensive (Clinton and Obama) and the second tier, who have to be on the offensive (Biden and Edwards). I like Biden and Obama far more than their (according to my tier-system) counterparts Clinton and Edwards. I like all of them more than Clinton. I think that in reality only Hillary and Barack have a chance to get the nomination and that Barack has a far better chance of winning against the Republicans than Hillary.
So, as of right now, practically, I want Obama (I know it's a drastic change). Less practically, but with a small chance, I want Biden. And theoretically I want Kucinich.
I still want Gore, but I'm not as depressed about the field of candidates as after reading their statements.
God help us all tonight with the fascist nutjobs spouting their rhetoric on the other side tonight at 4pm pacific time.
Monday, June 04, 2007
The Debates
First of all, I'd like to state that I did not watch the debates, but I did read every word of the transcript, so I can only comment on what they said and not the important things like Edwards's and Clinton's haircuts, or whether Obama's skin is the correct pigment.
Also, I'd like to state that my statements are all based on impressions left. I may attack someone for something that others said as well, but I am merely going by memory.
Biden - Biden continues to be exception to the mainstream. He's almost like a moderate version of Kucinich. They both somewhat seem to tell the truth. His nearing-on authentic candor about why he voted to continue funding is a little disingenuous, but he certainly has a grasp on issues. His understanding of Darfur and Iran were also impressive. The best part about him, is that he's known to be verbose. That means more nuance. That means more respect for me, the average American.
Clinton - Sickening, in a well done way. She answered no questions. Iran was her only strength. She refused to condemn Bill for "don't ask, don't tell". Peter Pace is an asshole, and should have been fired long before Don Imus. He's obviously not fit to lead our forces' attempts to effect liberal democracy. He's a bigot. Your husband was not perfect Mrs. Clinton! Her attempts to gain the moral high ground with her stand against hypothetical situations was silly. She still said she would assassinate Osama Bin Laden even it killed civilians. What the hell kinda world are we living in? The simplistic fantasy world of Israel? I think she would be perfect against someone like Giuliani though, who also doesn't seem to be able to think in complete, intelligent sentences.
Dodd - Boring. I no longer care. He has no chance and when Bill Maher gave him an opportunity to confirm what Republican Ron Paul said about "the terrorists'" reasons for attacking "us", he still lied through his teeth. He doesn't understand that the lower tier candidates must be exciting, and not just spout the same drivel as the front-runners, which is what he said all night. Oh no, we better not threaten to boycott the Olympics to save hundreds of thousands of women from being raped and men and women from being murdered in Sudan. That would go "too far". Get off the stage.
Edwards - Somehow, he is in many ways inching his way forward as my favorite of the three leaders. First of all, though, he does not get points for admitting he was wrong about the war. He knew it was poltically sound at the time so he did it. He didn't vote due to the intelligence. Everyone knew Bush was a liar then, but they were just scared. Give him no credit over Clinton. I say she wins on the war. He needs to give real health care, a la Kucinich. Kucinich is also more right on the war. HOWEVER. Edwards actually does seem to care about the poor. He brought it up briefly at the end, but of course, there was no time for that. AND Edwards is now my hero for the bumper sticker comment. There is no war on terror. It's an attempt by our president to take away our rights and wage endless war with no goals. He wants complete control, no micromanagement, and when the generals no longer agree with him, he fires them (excuse me, they "quit"). He is attempting to become a despot. Thank you John Edwards. (Hillary really missed an attempt to make this a widely-discussed topic and to debunk the whole fascist myth, but of course, she didn't.) And also, kudos to you for exposing Obama and Clinton for waiting to sneak their vote against funding in at the very end. However, Edwards will likely lose many people for appearing to be "negative". I wish people would realize that negative is wonderful when you speak of the actual issues, in order to clarify differences between candidates. Negative is bad when you lie, distort or moralize.
Gravel - Pathetic. He occasionally says some interesting things, but Kucinich already has the role of the straight-talker. Gravel just sounds like a nut. He's harming Kucinich.
Kucinich - Amazing, as usual. No assassinations. SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. Get out of NAFTA. DON'T FUND THE WAR! Too bad people are dumb.
Obama - He has been the real real real real loser of both of these debates. HE SAYS NOTHING! He will not win by copying Clinton, because she is more popular. He will not win with his fake health plan. If they want it they will buy it, he seems to think. Is that what you think on immigration? If they want to be legal, they'll pay 5,000 dollars? You know, just a small fraction of the millions that they've amassed working as a busboy or a dishwasher. You're speech was good. You can play basketball. You really are black. You didn't go to a madrassa. You were apparently a very impressive political figure in the state government of Illinois, but now you don't know what you're doing. YOU VOTED FOR THE WALL BETWEEN HERE AND MEXICO, YOU JERK! You were not in the federal government, so your opposition to war "from the beginning" is irrelevant! You don't get to use that. And to preempt Edwards, you weren't in the Senate to vote against the wall, so don't try to use that one later. I'm sorry to say it, but Obama sucks.
Richardson - I was somewhat rooting for him in an underdog sort of way. He's from my neck-of-the-woods. However, he just seemed to ramble all night and I'm really sick of people constantly saying that their federal plans come from their local plans. New Mexico has one of the lowest populations of any state. The federal government is a completely different animal. Again, as a second-tierer, he needs to speak more clearly. He doesn't have the luxury of evading the issues that Hillary has.
Someone needs to defend poor people (maybe Edwards) and gay people (not impressive Richardson), for god's sake!
All in all, I wish that Richardson, Gravel and Dodd would leave. They are not unique (maybe Richardson can stay, he is good on energy). In the order of overall chance, it would leave, from best chance to worst: Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Biden, Kucinich. Of course, my preference order would be Kucinich, Edwards, Biden, Obama, Clinton. However, as far as ability to beat the Republicans, I would put it in this order Clinton, Edwards, Obama, Biden, Kucinich. So who am I voting for right now?
For chances: Clinton
For reasonable chance but with some integrity: Edwards
For real desire: Kucinich
So, who am I voting for? Al Gore.
Also, I'd like to state that my statements are all based on impressions left. I may attack someone for something that others said as well, but I am merely going by memory.
Biden - Biden continues to be exception to the mainstream. He's almost like a moderate version of Kucinich. They both somewhat seem to tell the truth. His nearing-on authentic candor about why he voted to continue funding is a little disingenuous, but he certainly has a grasp on issues. His understanding of Darfur and Iran were also impressive. The best part about him, is that he's known to be verbose. That means more nuance. That means more respect for me, the average American.
Clinton - Sickening, in a well done way. She answered no questions. Iran was her only strength. She refused to condemn Bill for "don't ask, don't tell". Peter Pace is an asshole, and should have been fired long before Don Imus. He's obviously not fit to lead our forces' attempts to effect liberal democracy. He's a bigot. Your husband was not perfect Mrs. Clinton! Her attempts to gain the moral high ground with her stand against hypothetical situations was silly. She still said she would assassinate Osama Bin Laden even it killed civilians. What the hell kinda world are we living in? The simplistic fantasy world of Israel? I think she would be perfect against someone like Giuliani though, who also doesn't seem to be able to think in complete, intelligent sentences.
Dodd - Boring. I no longer care. He has no chance and when Bill Maher gave him an opportunity to confirm what Republican Ron Paul said about "the terrorists'" reasons for attacking "us", he still lied through his teeth. He doesn't understand that the lower tier candidates must be exciting, and not just spout the same drivel as the front-runners, which is what he said all night. Oh no, we better not threaten to boycott the Olympics to save hundreds of thousands of women from being raped and men and women from being murdered in Sudan. That would go "too far". Get off the stage.
Edwards - Somehow, he is in many ways inching his way forward as my favorite of the three leaders. First of all, though, he does not get points for admitting he was wrong about the war. He knew it was poltically sound at the time so he did it. He didn't vote due to the intelligence. Everyone knew Bush was a liar then, but they were just scared. Give him no credit over Clinton. I say she wins on the war. He needs to give real health care, a la Kucinich. Kucinich is also more right on the war. HOWEVER. Edwards actually does seem to care about the poor. He brought it up briefly at the end, but of course, there was no time for that. AND Edwards is now my hero for the bumper sticker comment. There is no war on terror. It's an attempt by our president to take away our rights and wage endless war with no goals. He wants complete control, no micromanagement, and when the generals no longer agree with him, he fires them (excuse me, they "quit"). He is attempting to become a despot. Thank you John Edwards. (Hillary really missed an attempt to make this a widely-discussed topic and to debunk the whole fascist myth, but of course, she didn't.) And also, kudos to you for exposing Obama and Clinton for waiting to sneak their vote against funding in at the very end. However, Edwards will likely lose many people for appearing to be "negative". I wish people would realize that negative is wonderful when you speak of the actual issues, in order to clarify differences between candidates. Negative is bad when you lie, distort or moralize.
Gravel - Pathetic. He occasionally says some interesting things, but Kucinich already has the role of the straight-talker. Gravel just sounds like a nut. He's harming Kucinich.
Kucinich - Amazing, as usual. No assassinations. SOCIALIZED MEDICINE. Get out of NAFTA. DON'T FUND THE WAR! Too bad people are dumb.
Obama - He has been the real real real real loser of both of these debates. HE SAYS NOTHING! He will not win by copying Clinton, because she is more popular. He will not win with his fake health plan. If they want it they will buy it, he seems to think. Is that what you think on immigration? If they want to be legal, they'll pay 5,000 dollars? You know, just a small fraction of the millions that they've amassed working as a busboy or a dishwasher. You're speech was good. You can play basketball. You really are black. You didn't go to a madrassa. You were apparently a very impressive political figure in the state government of Illinois, but now you don't know what you're doing. YOU VOTED FOR THE WALL BETWEEN HERE AND MEXICO, YOU JERK! You were not in the federal government, so your opposition to war "from the beginning" is irrelevant! You don't get to use that. And to preempt Edwards, you weren't in the Senate to vote against the wall, so don't try to use that one later. I'm sorry to say it, but Obama sucks.
Richardson - I was somewhat rooting for him in an underdog sort of way. He's from my neck-of-the-woods. However, he just seemed to ramble all night and I'm really sick of people constantly saying that their federal plans come from their local plans. New Mexico has one of the lowest populations of any state. The federal government is a completely different animal. Again, as a second-tierer, he needs to speak more clearly. He doesn't have the luxury of evading the issues that Hillary has.
Someone needs to defend poor people (maybe Edwards) and gay people (not impressive Richardson), for god's sake!
All in all, I wish that Richardson, Gravel and Dodd would leave. They are not unique (maybe Richardson can stay, he is good on energy). In the order of overall chance, it would leave, from best chance to worst: Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Biden, Kucinich. Of course, my preference order would be Kucinich, Edwards, Biden, Obama, Clinton. However, as far as ability to beat the Republicans, I would put it in this order Clinton, Edwards, Obama, Biden, Kucinich. So who am I voting for right now?
For chances: Clinton
For reasonable chance but with some integrity: Edwards
For real desire: Kucinich
So, who am I voting for? Al Gore.
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Castro and Rostock
So, Agnieszka, her friend Justyna and I were in the Castro last night, and I went into a Starbucks to use the bathroom. This guy standing in line behind me for the bathroom started a little discussion with me and I have to tell you, that is the most references to the Clueless with Alicia Silverstone I've ever heard in a 5 minute period. Much more entertaining than the man in front who mumblingly told me to avoid having a pinched nerve in your back, because if you do, you might end up crawling around the streets and someone might call the police. But he did have to admit, the policemen were "dears". I didn't actually start either of these discussions.... hehe.
As you might expect, I am quite aware of the violence in Rostock that left 400 policemen and hundreds of protesters injured and led to 150 arrests. Frighteningly, although I don't condone throwing bricks at police officers in any way, I can't condemn the anger that they feel. George Bush is trying to co-opt the conference's once possibly legitimate topic, how to fight climate change, and suggest a weaker platform to be discussed at the end of 2008 (right before he leaves office).
The world is getting angry. Globalization is not just bringing together the leaders and businessmen of the world to profit off the backs of the poor. It's also bringing together the anger or the "tired, poor, huddled masses". I honestly think the situation is getting so dire that there is barely another outlet rather than brutal violence for that level of society. I have the ability to study and at least avoid some of the direct effects. But can any of us honestly tell an uneducated, unemployed worker from Serbia that he should calm down, work hard and wait for the situation to improve? To me, I think Lenin and Mao were just a little premature. Marx's concept of the poor being pushed more and more towards a breaking point seems to be becoming ever more evident.
Pete Seeger - Turn, Turn, Turn
As you might expect, I am quite aware of the violence in Rostock that left 400 policemen and hundreds of protesters injured and led to 150 arrests. Frighteningly, although I don't condone throwing bricks at police officers in any way, I can't condemn the anger that they feel. George Bush is trying to co-opt the conference's once possibly legitimate topic, how to fight climate change, and suggest a weaker platform to be discussed at the end of 2008 (right before he leaves office).
The world is getting angry. Globalization is not just bringing together the leaders and businessmen of the world to profit off the backs of the poor. It's also bringing together the anger or the "tired, poor, huddled masses". I honestly think the situation is getting so dire that there is barely another outlet rather than brutal violence for that level of society. I have the ability to study and at least avoid some of the direct effects. But can any of us honestly tell an uneducated, unemployed worker from Serbia that he should calm down, work hard and wait for the situation to improve? To me, I think Lenin and Mao were just a little premature. Marx's concept of the poor being pushed more and more towards a breaking point seems to be becoming ever more evident.
Pete Seeger - Turn, Turn, Turn
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)