Take a look at this opinion on iReport.com, because my blog today is a response to it. It scares me that this could possibly be the way any, much less many, American voters think.
In it, the voter writes:
"If she can run a family of five, she will have no problem running a country...."
Could she be for real? I mean, seriously. Is this for real? Are people's views really that simplistic?
The Presidency of the United States-- which is, after all, what the Vice-Presidency is all about, so remember, she's got to be ready to be PRESIDENT-- isn't about whether we have fish sticks or meat loaf tonight. The crises are bigger than whether we can afford to get the kids an XBox. Problems arise that dwarf mending the backyard fence. Crises like handling an illegitimate pregnancy that consume a mother's life for weeks, pale in comparison to the things the President has to deal with several times a day. The USA has problems with a touch more gravitas than being a hockey mom.
This is the world's largest economy, and it's in big trouble.
This is a nation of 300 million plus without any guarantees for its citizens of health care or education beyond high school.
This is a country with a largely ignorant white majority that is shrinking, and whose long-standing racial hatreds that are shifting from blacks to its Latin immigrant population, many of whom are here illegally.
This is a country where corporations funnel billions of dollars off the government teat, and where influence peddling-- which Governor Palin seems to be very well-versed in-- is ruining our very existence.
This is a nation embroiled in two wars, egging on a third, whose international reputation is in complete disrepair.
So I admonish folks to rethink their decision that Sarah Palin's motherhood makes her qualified to be President. Because, with all the respect she is due, if this blogger's shallow, ill-formulated opinion represents the average American voter... God have mercy on us.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Palin: a loveable woman, but an appalling candidate
A British analyst's scathing take on why Sarah Palin absolutely should not be considered the great hope for women in politics. Good ammo for any anti-Palin crusaders. Obama's camp should use it as a talking points memo. John McCain's VP nominee has a lot of admirable qualities, but she isn't ready to lead. Here's a point-by-point as to why.
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Go Campbell, Go Campbell...
It was fun watching Tucker Bounds, McCain's spokesman, shake in his boots during his interview with CNN's Campbell Brown.
See for yourself:
And after that disastrous performance, Bounds got his panties in a twist and canceled McCain's scheduled appearance on Larry King Live. That'll show CNN, right?
Wrong. It just shows that the GOP is in total disarray. It shows that Tucker Bounds can't defend the choice of Sarah Palin, and it shows that they're afraid Larry King would ask the same question of John McCain, who would do no better.
This is a freakshow.
See for yourself:
And after that disastrous performance, Bounds got his panties in a twist and canceled McCain's scheduled appearance on Larry King Live. That'll show CNN, right?
Wrong. It just shows that the GOP is in total disarray. It shows that Tucker Bounds can't defend the choice of Sarah Palin, and it shows that they're afraid Larry King would ask the same question of John McCain, who would do no better.
This is a freakshow.
Why I Won't Shut Up About Sarah Palin
Palin's family off-limits? Maybe for Barack Obama, but not for me.
Democrats shoot themselves in both feet every time they try to take the high road, because the Republicans never do. For example, if I were Al Gore, I would still be contesting the 2000 election instead of all that "concede and heal" nonsense.
So... I'll say what nobody else will. If Sarah Palin can't keep tabs on her own daughter, arming her with abstinence education and Christian piety, how, someone tell me, how, in God's name, is she supposed to run a country?
If baby Trig, known to have Down Syndrome, came prematurely by a month to a 44-year-old mother, and that mother, Governor Palin, finished a speech and then flew for 12 hours with her water broken only to pass up two hospitals with NICUs only to give birth in some backwater medical clinic, how, in God's name, are we to trust her to handle a time-is-of-the-essence international crisis?
If son Track can't be mentioned in public without noting that he enlisted last year, and, coincidentally is headed to Iraq this year on the same date-- September 11th-- then I'll be damned if I'll keep the kids out of it.
Governor Palin is, plainly and simply, whoring her kids out for political purposes. She's turning Track into a modern doughboy, Bristol into an anti-choice poster child, and using Trig as testament to her pioneer toughness, bragging that she returned to work just three days after birthing him... like that's something to be proud of.
She's a disgrace-- a political animal of the first order that could only be the creation of ambition, blind fervency, and Karl Rove.
Democrats shoot themselves in both feet every time they try to take the high road, because the Republicans never do. For example, if I were Al Gore, I would still be contesting the 2000 election instead of all that "concede and heal" nonsense.
So... I'll say what nobody else will. If Sarah Palin can't keep tabs on her own daughter, arming her with abstinence education and Christian piety, how, someone tell me, how, in God's name, is she supposed to run a country?
If baby Trig, known to have Down Syndrome, came prematurely by a month to a 44-year-old mother, and that mother, Governor Palin, finished a speech and then flew for 12 hours with her water broken only to pass up two hospitals with NICUs only to give birth in some backwater medical clinic, how, in God's name, are we to trust her to handle a time-is-of-the-essence international crisis?
If son Track can't be mentioned in public without noting that he enlisted last year, and, coincidentally is headed to Iraq this year on the same date-- September 11th-- then I'll be damned if I'll keep the kids out of it.
Governor Palin is, plainly and simply, whoring her kids out for political purposes. She's turning Track into a modern doughboy, Bristol into an anti-choice poster child, and using Trig as testament to her pioneer toughness, bragging that she returned to work just three days after birthing him... like that's something to be proud of.
She's a disgrace-- a political animal of the first order that could only be the creation of ambition, blind fervency, and Karl Rove.
Monday, September 01, 2008
McCain's Lost.. His Mind
Governors rarely have foreign policy experience. But that not withstanding, in so many other ways, Sarah Palin is a disaster.
Twenty months ago, she was the ex-mayor of a town of less than 9,000. Her foreign policy is the same as her domestic policy: drill, drill, drill. She has been no friend to the environment. She is entirely Alaska-focused, with her primary stated objective of "oil independence" as a veiled attempt to boost her home state's presence on the national stage. At one point, she belonged to the Alaska Independence Party that promotes secession from the USA. Hardly patriotic.
She has manipulated her own children for political purposes, turning Bristol and Trig into poster-children for her anti-choice agenda.
She has repeatedly lied and backpedaled. She has abused her power. She has used her position for political gain. Even the small town of Wasilla was left after her administration with an economy in tatters and an unfinished arena, higher taxes, and shortage of services.
Even those whose job it is to smile and pretend like the GOP leadership can do no wrong, even with the blinders on and the Kool-Aid stains all around their mouths can see... she's the worst possible pick.
Sarah Palin is nothing more than a one-stop pandering ploy, trying to rein in Hillary supporters (who should just do a 180° despite positions just 'coz the Gov is a woman), right-wing evangelical yahoos (who are crapping their pants that her daughter is knocked up), and dudes that just want a hot chick on the ticket.
I do admit, she's a total fox.
Twenty months ago, she was the ex-mayor of a town of less than 9,000. Her foreign policy is the same as her domestic policy: drill, drill, drill. She has been no friend to the environment. She is entirely Alaska-focused, with her primary stated objective of "oil independence" as a veiled attempt to boost her home state's presence on the national stage. At one point, she belonged to the Alaska Independence Party that promotes secession from the USA. Hardly patriotic.
She has manipulated her own children for political purposes, turning Bristol and Trig into poster-children for her anti-choice agenda.
She has repeatedly lied and backpedaled. She has abused her power. She has used her position for political gain. Even the small town of Wasilla was left after her administration with an economy in tatters and an unfinished arena, higher taxes, and shortage of services.
Even those whose job it is to smile and pretend like the GOP leadership can do no wrong, even with the blinders on and the Kool-Aid stains all around their mouths can see... she's the worst possible pick.
Sarah Palin is nothing more than a one-stop pandering ploy, trying to rein in Hillary supporters (who should just do a 180° despite positions just 'coz the Gov is a woman), right-wing evangelical yahoos (who are crapping their pants that her daughter is knocked up), and dudes that just want a hot chick on the ticket.
I do admit, she's a total fox.
Palin Baby: The Plot Sickens
Wow. I never thought the way they'd cover up Bristol Palin's illegitimate pregnancy with... another illegitimate pregnancy.
Today, Governor Sarah Palin announced that her 17-year-old daughter Bristol is five months pregnant. Five months. What a convenient way to convince folks that she isn't Trig's mommy: She couldn't possibly have given birth to Trig, she had just gotten knocked up when he was born!
Anyone for Irish Twins?
I'll lay you a dollar to a dime right now that Bristol will either miscarry or give birth early.
Sarah Palin, whether she's her own deceptive mastermind, or a willing victim/puppet of Karl Rove, has sunk lower than any politician I've ever encountered. Using her own children and grandchildren to further her neo-Nazi agenda. What a piece of work.
Today, Governor Sarah Palin announced that her 17-year-old daughter Bristol is five months pregnant. Five months. What a convenient way to convince folks that she isn't Trig's mommy: She couldn't possibly have given birth to Trig, she had just gotten knocked up when he was born!
Anyone for Irish Twins?
I'll lay you a dollar to a dime right now that Bristol will either miscarry or give birth early.
Sarah Palin, whether she's her own deceptive mastermind, or a willing victim/puppet of Karl Rove, has sunk lower than any politician I've ever encountered. Using her own children and grandchildren to further her neo-Nazi agenda. What a piece of work.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Truth or Lie, Palin Fails Trig Test Either Way
Governor Sarah Palin's selection as John McCain's running mate was a gift from Heaven to Barack Obama. Honestly. An disconnected, elitist warhawk with a bad temper and a worse health record chooses a backwater neophyte as his running mate. If Obama and Biden are a couple of hungry wolves, Palin is a little lost lamb.
But now with increasing speculation (and, if not credence, at least plausability) to the rumor than little Trig Palin, the WannaVeep's youngest child, actually is the fruit of her daughter Bristol's womb, and not her own, the lamb may very well be sacrificed.
This is the stuff of novels, and so no matter how far-fetched it may appear, bear with me a moment. What I am about to report are the official story. I won't even address the speculation as to the reasons:
1. Gov. Palin's eldest daughter, Bristol, was pulled from school for mononucleosis. For at least five months, maybe longer, as the Governor prepared to give birth.
2. Gov. Palin announced on March 5, 2008 that she was due to give birth in mid-May, making her, according to her own accounts at the time of the announcement, seven months pregnant.
3. At the time of the announcement, staffers and onlookers were shocked. The general concensus: nobody cold tell Gov. Palin was pregnant. At seven months.
4. Video is available for public access that shows Gov. Palin walking briskly, in high heels and tight clothing, not looking the slightest bit pregnant, in February. The day after the announcement, video clips show her looking considerably heavier than the day before. In one video clip she discusses how much she likes running in the hills of Juneau "because it really shreds your guts."
5. According to Gov. Palin's own account, her water broke April 17, 2008, the day she was to give the keynote address at an energy conference in Dallas. She went on, and gave the speech, leaking amniotic fluid.
6. It is a well-known medical fact that leakage of amniotic fluid puts a baby in distress and leaves the chld at a greater risk for infection.
7. After the speech, Gov. Palin left DFW on a commercial flight on Alaska Airlines, and flew back to Anchorage, via a layover in Seattle. The trip was a minimum of nine hours, and could have been as many as twelve. Flight personnel have stated the Governor never appeared to be in any distress, nor was her pregnancy even evident.
8. From Anchorage, it was off to her hometown of Wasilla, to the small Mat-Su Regional Medical Center, 45 miles away, where she gave birth. The Mat-Su facility has no NICU. She drove over an hour to Wasilla past two regional facilities that have NICU and proper staff to deal with premature baby issues and Down Syndrome neonatal complications.
9. Gov. Palin's doctor, Dr. Cathy Baldwin-Johnson-- who isn't in fact an obstetrician, but a family practicioner-- broke the news to her in December that her child would have Down's Syndrome. This, combined with her age (44), would indicate that the Governor knew her pregnancy was high-risk.
10. She finally gave birth to Trig 30 hours or so after her water broke, which is a dangerous delay.
Does this even sound like the plausible actions of a woman who's had four kids? A 44-year-old who is involved in a high-risk pregnancy? A woman who gives a damn about the life growing inside her?
Nope. So the possible explanations are very simple.
1. If the child is Bristol's, it's a world-class cover-up scandal. Either the life in question wasn't growing inside of her, but perhaps her eldest daughter, which would be a colossal embarrassment for a sitting Governor known for Christian evangelical conservatism and preaching abstinence as the only acceptable form of birth control.... or....
2. If the child is Sarah's, she was reckless with its health-- flying all over North America with her water broken, risking infection, putting the child in distress, and worse. She placed the importance of a political speech over the welfare of an unborn, premature baby when she was 44 years old-- high risk to begin with.
This is not about Down's, or abortion, or family values, or abstinence, or a mother's love, no matter how they try to spin it when this story hits the mainstream media. This is about politics.
Either way, she's an abomination: a deceitful manipulator, or a woman who uses her own children (or grandchildren) for personal gain. She deserves the crucifixion that's coming to her.
But now with increasing speculation (and, if not credence, at least plausability) to the rumor than little Trig Palin, the WannaVeep's youngest child, actually is the fruit of her daughter Bristol's womb, and not her own, the lamb may very well be sacrificed.
This is the stuff of novels, and so no matter how far-fetched it may appear, bear with me a moment. What I am about to report are the official story. I won't even address the speculation as to the reasons:
1. Gov. Palin's eldest daughter, Bristol, was pulled from school for mononucleosis. For at least five months, maybe longer, as the Governor prepared to give birth.
2. Gov. Palin announced on March 5, 2008 that she was due to give birth in mid-May, making her, according to her own accounts at the time of the announcement, seven months pregnant.
3. At the time of the announcement, staffers and onlookers were shocked. The general concensus: nobody cold tell Gov. Palin was pregnant. At seven months.
4. Video is available for public access that shows Gov. Palin walking briskly, in high heels and tight clothing, not looking the slightest bit pregnant, in February. The day after the announcement, video clips show her looking considerably heavier than the day before. In one video clip she discusses how much she likes running in the hills of Juneau "because it really shreds your guts."
5. According to Gov. Palin's own account, her water broke April 17, 2008, the day she was to give the keynote address at an energy conference in Dallas. She went on, and gave the speech, leaking amniotic fluid.
6. It is a well-known medical fact that leakage of amniotic fluid puts a baby in distress and leaves the chld at a greater risk for infection.
7. After the speech, Gov. Palin left DFW on a commercial flight on Alaska Airlines, and flew back to Anchorage, via a layover in Seattle. The trip was a minimum of nine hours, and could have been as many as twelve. Flight personnel have stated the Governor never appeared to be in any distress, nor was her pregnancy even evident.
8. From Anchorage, it was off to her hometown of Wasilla, to the small Mat-Su Regional Medical Center, 45 miles away, where she gave birth. The Mat-Su facility has no NICU. She drove over an hour to Wasilla past two regional facilities that have NICU and proper staff to deal with premature baby issues and Down Syndrome neonatal complications.
9. Gov. Palin's doctor, Dr. Cathy Baldwin-Johnson-- who isn't in fact an obstetrician, but a family practicioner-- broke the news to her in December that her child would have Down's Syndrome. This, combined with her age (44), would indicate that the Governor knew her pregnancy was high-risk.
10. She finally gave birth to Trig 30 hours or so after her water broke, which is a dangerous delay.
Does this even sound like the plausible actions of a woman who's had four kids? A 44-year-old who is involved in a high-risk pregnancy? A woman who gives a damn about the life growing inside her?
Nope. So the possible explanations are very simple.
1. If the child is Bristol's, it's a world-class cover-up scandal. Either the life in question wasn't growing inside of her, but perhaps her eldest daughter, which would be a colossal embarrassment for a sitting Governor known for Christian evangelical conservatism and preaching abstinence as the only acceptable form of birth control.... or....
2. If the child is Sarah's, she was reckless with its health-- flying all over North America with her water broken, risking infection, putting the child in distress, and worse. She placed the importance of a political speech over the welfare of an unborn, premature baby when she was 44 years old-- high risk to begin with.
This is not about Down's, or abortion, or family values, or abstinence, or a mother's love, no matter how they try to spin it when this story hits the mainstream media. This is about politics.
Either way, she's an abomination: a deceitful manipulator, or a woman who uses her own children (or grandchildren) for personal gain. She deserves the crucifixion that's coming to her.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Do The Right Thing... For Hillary Clinton
Did you support Hillary Rodham Clinton in the primaries?
She was a great candidate. She ran a fantastic, hard-fought campaign, and she deserves all the credit and recognition that she is being awarded right now at the Democratic National Convention.
If you supported Hillary, your fight isn't over. There is still one thing you can do to make sure all her efforts were not in vain. It won't take much effort, either. All you need to do is: put your heart and soul into ensuring that Barack Obama is elected the next president of the United States.
With Senator Clinton out of the race, voters may choose to follow her lead and switch their allegiance to Senator Obama. They may also choose not to vote, or (as some of them have indicated) vote for Senator McCain. The latter two options yield the same result: since record numbers of Democratic voters are needed to turn out for November's elections vs. Republican voters who tend to be more likely to vote, a non-vote will essentially benefit McCain.
Current polls are telling us that as many as 1 in 3 voters who supported Senator Clinton in the primaries may not vote for Senator Obama in November. I have diced and sliced this in many ways, and it all comes down to only a few possible reasons:
- Straight-up racism, which is indefensible in this day and age
- Feminists angry because the woman candidate didn't win, which is, in fact, reverse sexism
- Fearmongering about Obama's purported Muslim background, which is an out-and-out falsehood
- The cult of personality: people who just love Hillary, and won't hear of voting for anyone else
- The "inexperience" factor
This last one is the one that a lot of people use to veil the actual reason they won't vote for Obama. But to favor McCain over Obama simply on experience is missing the point: less experience is far better than the wrong experience.
It is unconscionable to me that a Hillary supporter would turn around and vote for McCain merely out of spite. To do so would fly right in the face of everything that brave woman stands for. It would literally undo every bit of good that Hillary's husband did during his tenure of office.
For example: Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens (one of the few dissenting justices appointed by a Republican) is approaching 90 years of age. His replacement is certain to be a much more conservative voice in the mould of Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, or Samuel Alito. If Justice Stevens is replaced by John McCain, issues dear to Hillary Clinton such as reproductive rights, civil rights for gays and lesbians, and environmental protection, could be thrown out the window.
I don't think Hillary Clinton would want her supporters bringing about an America in which Roe v. Wade is overturned. I think Senator Clinton would be insensed by the notion that some of her supporters are fearful of Obama because of his East African heritage, or because his middle name is Hussein.
Senator Clinton had a lot at stake in the primaries, but ultimately her hesitation to accept defeat in the face of an increasingly apparent reality all came down to a matter of pride. Pride, it is said, goes before a fall. And she has fallen, and now swallows her pride, and supports her former adversary. She is indeed humbled, but there is no shame or disrespect in her defeat: she ran a great race, and her camp has been instrumental in securing the DNC's platform for 2008. The presumptive nominee is espousing almost every cause dear to Hillary Clinton.
Therefore it is our duty, as those who respect her and who care for the principles upon which she campaigned, to see to it that those ideals and principles are upheld. And John McCain simply will not honor her principles.
- McCain has reversed his position on a woman's right to choose, stating that his would be "a pro-life White House."
- McCain has said that he would actively seek another armed conflict, this one with Iran, showing no sanctity whatsoever for the very real lives of our armed service men and women, by jokingly singing, "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" to a Beach Boys tune.
- McCain has stated that victory is paramount in Iraq, and that if it takes a hundred years, he doesn't care. That means he doesn't care how many more soldiers die there.
- McCain's health care program benefits the insurance companies and pharmaceuticals industries by largely leaving their price-gouging practices intact, and shifts the burden onto patients themselves for how best to pay for care. McCain also seeks tort reform which benefits doctors who make tragic mistakes.
- McCain's economic plan involves more free-trade agreements, which hurt American workers. His plan to curtail government spending would leave huge gaps in every area of the Federal operation... except the war.
Do you really think you're showing your support to Hillary by putting that mentality in the White House?
Don't let Hillary's efforts have been in vain. Honor what she stands for. Please... please vote for, endorse and actively work to win the Presidency for Senator Barack Obama. America's future literally depends upon it.
Monday, March 10, 2008
An Open Letter to Oklahoma State Representative Sally Kern
NOTE: Oklahoma House Representative Sally Kern made some remarks in a speech to some of her supporters that were caught on YouTube, and this is my response to her for those remarks. I sent this to her by e-mail. For what it's worth, I think she's a nutter.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Rep. Kern:
The Holy Bible is a guidebook for the lives of Christians everywhere, and I know you hold it in highest reverence.
I strongly believe that God gave us the Bible for a multitude of reasons, and that we can and should apply it in different aspects of our lives.
It is a beacon in the darkness.
It is a guidepost in chaos.
It is a shield from trouble.
It is hope when all seems lost.
It is shelter from the storm.
It is an example to follow.
It is a channel to the Divine.
It is not, however, under any circumstances, a weapon. You ran as a "decidedly Christian" candidate, and now you are a "decidedly Christian" elected official. The difference between your status and those in the gay community who today are railing against you, is that you, whether you like us or not, represent us. You are making laws that affect us. You have power over us. The only power we have over you is that of our voice, and we must let you know that your comments are hurtful. They are shameful. They violate our rights as hard-working, taxpaying Americans. They deeply divide a people already too divided. They endorse ignorance, alienation, xenophobia and hatred.
In your speech, you said, "Not everybody's lifestyle is equal, just like not everybody's religion is equal." Sorry, Rep. Kern, but here in America, until people like you get their way... you're wrong. The framework documents drafted by our Founding Fathers ensure that indeed, our lifestyles and religions are all equal.
You were elected to speak for your constituents. You were not elected to preach, condemn or worse, to speak for God. How presumptuous of you!
According to Scripture, your recent remarks that were caught on tape show you to be, at best, a pandering hate-monger, and at worst, a self-righteous hypocrite. To wit:
"Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven." -- LUKE 6:37
"Hatred stirreth up strifes: but love covereth all sins." -- PROVERBS 10:12
"Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD." -- LEVITICUS 19:18
"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these." -- MARK 12:31
I don't see much love, Rep. Kern. If that speech is indicative of the love you have for yourself, then God have mercy on your soul, and on the lives of the people of Oklahoma whom you so shamefully represent.
I hope you find your way.
Sincerely,
Thomas Horton
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Rep. Kern:
The Holy Bible is a guidebook for the lives of Christians everywhere, and I know you hold it in highest reverence.
I strongly believe that God gave us the Bible for a multitude of reasons, and that we can and should apply it in different aspects of our lives.
It is a beacon in the darkness.
It is a guidepost in chaos.
It is a shield from trouble.
It is hope when all seems lost.
It is shelter from the storm.
It is an example to follow.
It is a channel to the Divine.
It is not, however, under any circumstances, a weapon. You ran as a "decidedly Christian" candidate, and now you are a "decidedly Christian" elected official. The difference between your status and those in the gay community who today are railing against you, is that you, whether you like us or not, represent us. You are making laws that affect us. You have power over us. The only power we have over you is that of our voice, and we must let you know that your comments are hurtful. They are shameful. They violate our rights as hard-working, taxpaying Americans. They deeply divide a people already too divided. They endorse ignorance, alienation, xenophobia and hatred.
In your speech, you said, "Not everybody's lifestyle is equal, just like not everybody's religion is equal." Sorry, Rep. Kern, but here in America, until people like you get their way... you're wrong. The framework documents drafted by our Founding Fathers ensure that indeed, our lifestyles and religions are all equal.
You were elected to speak for your constituents. You were not elected to preach, condemn or worse, to speak for God. How presumptuous of you!
According to Scripture, your recent remarks that were caught on tape show you to be, at best, a pandering hate-monger, and at worst, a self-righteous hypocrite. To wit:
"Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven." -- LUKE 6:37
"Hatred stirreth up strifes: but love covereth all sins." -- PROVERBS 10:12
"Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD." -- LEVITICUS 19:18
"Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these." -- MARK 12:31
I don't see much love, Rep. Kern. If that speech is indicative of the love you have for yourself, then God have mercy on your soul, and on the lives of the people of Oklahoma whom you so shamefully represent.
I hope you find your way.
Sincerely,
Thomas Horton
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Democrats Give McCain White House, Republicans Take Supreme Court
The title of my blog tonight is a really scary possibility, but we're inching closer to it every day.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are now officially tearing each other to shreds on the campaign trail. "Shame on you, Barack Obama," said Hillary today. Barack fired back, calling her "silly."
John McCain doesn't have to say anything bad about other Republicans because he's got virtually no remaining competition. How fantastic. McCain can look like a unifier.
Let me tell you what gets unified if Barack and Hillary don't knock it off: the US Supreme Court will be unified as a right-wing rubber stamp, ready to overturn Roe v. Wade, ready to shut out small businesses with pro-monopoly decisions, ready to irrevocably damage the environment, ready to take away more of our civil liberties.
So keep up the in-fighting, Senators Obama and Clinton: I want someone to blame when I'm living in a fascist state.
Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are now officially tearing each other to shreds on the campaign trail. "Shame on you, Barack Obama," said Hillary today. Barack fired back, calling her "silly."
John McCain doesn't have to say anything bad about other Republicans because he's got virtually no remaining competition. How fantastic. McCain can look like a unifier.
Let me tell you what gets unified if Barack and Hillary don't knock it off: the US Supreme Court will be unified as a right-wing rubber stamp, ready to overturn Roe v. Wade, ready to shut out small businesses with pro-monopoly decisions, ready to irrevocably damage the environment, ready to take away more of our civil liberties.
So keep up the in-fighting, Senators Obama and Clinton: I want someone to blame when I'm living in a fascist state.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Obama = Osama, or, Complete Idiocy
The Christian right-wing yahoos are preying upon the ignorance of the American people again, by drudging up this notion that Barack Obama is a Muslim.
For God's sake, Obama's sake, my sake, and your own sake... and hell, a bottle of sake for that matter...
BARACK OBAMA IS NOT, AND HAS NEVER BEEN, A MUSLIM.
Yes, his father is Kenyan. His mother was from Kansas, and was white.
Yes, his middle name is "Hussein." Hussein is a very common name in Arabic, a language local to the part of the world in which Kenya lies. In fact, Swahili has an enormous number of loanwords from Arabic.
"Hussein" is also his father's middle name, and his grandfather's name. He didn't choose it, anymore than you chose to be Caitlin (even through you may not be Irish), Yvette (even through you may not be French) or David (even though you may not be Jewish).
His first name, Barack, is in fact, both Swahili (the native language of Kenya) and Arabic. It means "blessed." Incidentally, "Hussein" means "handsome." KInda like "Beau" (a French name) or "Kevin" (an Irish name).
"Obama" is no more related to "Osama" than "Pitt" is related to "Shit." They rhyme. BIg deal.
Barack Obama used to live in Indonesia as a child. The rumor persists that he attended a "Muslim" school. He attended a completely non-religious institution in Indonesia. The fact that a majority of the children in attendance were Muslim is simply because the majority of Indonesians are Muslims, period. His Indonesian school was no more Muslim than Hillwood High is a "Christian" school. The school was not administered by or subject to any religious body.
Today, Barack Obama attends a United Church of Christ Church in Chicago. It is unapologetically Afrocentric, the way a Greek Orthodox Church may be unapologetically Hellenocentric, or the way a Coptic Christian Church may be unapologetically Egyptocentric, or the way the Roman Catholic Church may be unapologetically Eurocentric, for example. Since the man is a first generation American of direct African lineage, why would he not want to belong to a church that stresses the cultural significance of Africa?
As for the idea that the Christian church he attends is a "front" for the Nation of Islam (NOI), understand this: the NOI is both Afrocentric and Muslim. Obama's church is Afrocentric and Christian. The leader of Obama's church, who has been influential in Obama's spiritual life, has played footsie in the past with Louis Farrakhan of the NOI, but Farrakhan is not in any way associated with the Church-- he's a Muslim. It's a Christian Church. Anybody see a problem there? Obama has also publicly disagreed with the giving of an award to Farrakhan by Jeremiah Wright's daughter.
Understand: Obama's pastor's daughter gave an award to Farrakhan, which he denounced publicly. If that makes him a Muslim by extension, then follow this logic: my therapist's son is a McCain supporter, that must make me a Republican! Not!
It is rumored that Barack Obama won't say the Pledge of Allegiance. That's bunk. He has in fact he pledge in the Senate.
It is equally slandered that Barack Obama placed his hand on the Qu'ran to take his oath of office. That was, in fact, Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison (who, incidentally, swore to uphold the Constitution with his hand on a copy of the Qu'ran that was once owned by Thomas Jefferson... I'm pretty sure he wasn't a Muslim, but you never know). Those who say Barack Obama is the one who swore on a Qu'ran have adopted a "they all look alike to me" worldview concerning Blacks, I guess.
And in closing, even if Barack Obama were a Muslim (which he isn't, and never has been), isn't that his right as an American? And shouldn't we listen to the man, and not the crazed paranoid hype people keep slandering him with?
So, let's get this straight once and for all, and please, tell anyone who might have the screwed up notion that Barack Obama is a Muslim, to check their facts. While you're at it, call their fear out for what it is: racism, pure and simple. Xenophobia. Fear of what's different. Small-mindedness.
Yep. Call a spade a spade. And yes, I said it.
For God's sake, Obama's sake, my sake, and your own sake... and hell, a bottle of sake for that matter...
BARACK OBAMA IS NOT, AND HAS NEVER BEEN, A MUSLIM.
Yes, his father is Kenyan. His mother was from Kansas, and was white.
Yes, his middle name is "Hussein." Hussein is a very common name in Arabic, a language local to the part of the world in which Kenya lies. In fact, Swahili has an enormous number of loanwords from Arabic.
"Hussein" is also his father's middle name, and his grandfather's name. He didn't choose it, anymore than you chose to be Caitlin (even through you may not be Irish), Yvette (even through you may not be French) or David (even though you may not be Jewish).
His first name, Barack, is in fact, both Swahili (the native language of Kenya) and Arabic. It means "blessed." Incidentally, "Hussein" means "handsome." KInda like "Beau" (a French name) or "Kevin" (an Irish name).
"Obama" is no more related to "Osama" than "Pitt" is related to "Shit." They rhyme. BIg deal.
Barack Obama used to live in Indonesia as a child. The rumor persists that he attended a "Muslim" school. He attended a completely non-religious institution in Indonesia. The fact that a majority of the children in attendance were Muslim is simply because the majority of Indonesians are Muslims, period. His Indonesian school was no more Muslim than Hillwood High is a "Christian" school. The school was not administered by or subject to any religious body.
Today, Barack Obama attends a United Church of Christ Church in Chicago. It is unapologetically Afrocentric, the way a Greek Orthodox Church may be unapologetically Hellenocentric, or the way a Coptic Christian Church may be unapologetically Egyptocentric, or the way the Roman Catholic Church may be unapologetically Eurocentric, for example. Since the man is a first generation American of direct African lineage, why would he not want to belong to a church that stresses the cultural significance of Africa?
As for the idea that the Christian church he attends is a "front" for the Nation of Islam (NOI), understand this: the NOI is both Afrocentric and Muslim. Obama's church is Afrocentric and Christian. The leader of Obama's church, who has been influential in Obama's spiritual life, has played footsie in the past with Louis Farrakhan of the NOI, but Farrakhan is not in any way associated with the Church-- he's a Muslim. It's a Christian Church. Anybody see a problem there? Obama has also publicly disagreed with the giving of an award to Farrakhan by Jeremiah Wright's daughter.
Understand: Obama's pastor's daughter gave an award to Farrakhan, which he denounced publicly. If that makes him a Muslim by extension, then follow this logic: my therapist's son is a McCain supporter, that must make me a Republican! Not!
It is rumored that Barack Obama won't say the Pledge of Allegiance. That's bunk. He has in fact he pledge in the Senate.
It is equally slandered that Barack Obama placed his hand on the Qu'ran to take his oath of office. That was, in fact, Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison (who, incidentally, swore to uphold the Constitution with his hand on a copy of the Qu'ran that was once owned by Thomas Jefferson... I'm pretty sure he wasn't a Muslim, but you never know). Those who say Barack Obama is the one who swore on a Qu'ran have adopted a "they all look alike to me" worldview concerning Blacks, I guess.
And in closing, even if Barack Obama were a Muslim (which he isn't, and never has been), isn't that his right as an American? And shouldn't we listen to the man, and not the crazed paranoid hype people keep slandering him with?
So, let's get this straight once and for all, and please, tell anyone who might have the screwed up notion that Barack Obama is a Muslim, to check their facts. While you're at it, call their fear out for what it is: racism, pure and simple. Xenophobia. Fear of what's different. Small-mindedness.
Yep. Call a spade a spade. And yes, I said it.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
How To Stop A War
Mitt Romney dropped out of the Republican Presidential race today, stating, "In this time of war, I simply cannot let my campaign be a part of aiding a surrender to terror."
A surrender to terror?
Surrendering to terror is when you allow terrorists-- or the perceived threat of terrorists-- to interfere with the flow of your everyday life. When you get all worried and flustered with fear that you or your loved ones might get blown up by a bomb, you've surrendered to terror.
It is with that in mind that I challenge Mr. Romney's reasoning for dropping out of the race, leaving John McCain the heir apparent to the Republican nomination this fall.
McCain's stance on the war, taken from his web site, is as follows, verbatim:
We face an enemy that has repeatedly attacked us and remains committed to killing Americans and the destruction of our values. This election is about who is best prepared to lead and defend our nation and its global allies as Commander-in-Chief from day one. This election is about making sure we have the experienced leadership to guide us to victory in this war, protect the nation against future terrorist attacks, and support our troops and first responders who are on the frontlines of the war. This election will decide whether we choose to fight or announce surrender. It will decide whether we have a president who dangerously weakens U.S. security or strengthens it; whether we will flinch and retreat or fully engage the enemy on multiple fronts. We need decisive leadership with the vision and experience to guide our country and the world through this challenge. Having a courageous Commander-in-Chief who is willing to lead us in this war, rally our democratic allies and defeat our enemy to secure a broader peace is what's at stake in this election. (emphasis mine)
I underlined three things in his policy statement, that I'd like to take issue with:
1. VICTORY: Victory in war is an outmoded concept, and a short-sighted view of what the war even means. What does "victory" in the Iraq war mean exactly, Mr. McCain? The establishment of an American-style democracy in Iraq? That's never worked before. For most of the country's history, Iraq's presidents have been authoritarian dictators occupying an office without a clearly designed constitutional structure. Such presidents exercised all power single-handedly, operating only with the consultation of a small cabinet. Government after government has been overthrown, even prior to Saddam Hussein's accession to power. So what makes us think that we can come in and snap our fingers, and age-old differences between Iraqi power brokers is simply going the way of the wind? How long will we have to occupy Iraq to ensure they play by the rules we set up for them? Iraq is a failed state: its central government is so weak or ineffective that it has little practical control over much of its territory. We plunged it into civil war, and our soldiers are dying there. What do we "win" with "victory?" What's in it for the USA?
2. FULLY ENGAGE THE ENEMY ON MULTIPLE FRONTS: The war in Iraq, which is not against Iraq, but against insurgents, began as a political smokescreen to divert the attention of the American people away from our inability to capture Osama bin-Laden. Our failed war in Afghanistan was met with a failed war in Iraq. Now Mr. McCain wants to engage the enemy (singular), but on multiple fronts? Sounds like Mr. McCain defines "the enemy" as "our many enemies." We could go to war with Iran to get everyone's minds off the debacle in Iraq. What next? Venezuela to forget Iran? North Korea to forget Venezuela? "Do things our way or die" is not an instrument to peace. Previous American leaders effectively dealt with crazies like Muammar Qaddafi, Fidel Castro, Francisco Franco and Idi Amin, all without going to war with them. I don't Mr. McCain has any interest in pursuing peace with our enemies. I think he genuine wants to stay in a perpetual state of war. Maybe it's a holdover from his POW days-- I wasn't in 'Nam, I don't understand.
3. TO SECURE A BROADER PEACE: Again, a reductionist and short-sighted statement. How can one "secure" peace in an unstable world with factions and interest at impasses over limited and fixed resources and borders? A broader peace? Fighting to achieve peace, with all due respect, Mr. McCain, is like fucking to achieve virginity-- it won't work.
So... how do you stop a war? Both Democratic candidates have said they'll bring our troops home. And now that it looks like the only Republican choice will be John McCain... if you want an end to the war, you'll simply have to trust Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.
A surrender to terror?
Surrendering to terror is when you allow terrorists-- or the perceived threat of terrorists-- to interfere with the flow of your everyday life. When you get all worried and flustered with fear that you or your loved ones might get blown up by a bomb, you've surrendered to terror.
It is with that in mind that I challenge Mr. Romney's reasoning for dropping out of the race, leaving John McCain the heir apparent to the Republican nomination this fall.
McCain's stance on the war, taken from his web site, is as follows, verbatim:
We face an enemy that has repeatedly attacked us and remains committed to killing Americans and the destruction of our values. This election is about who is best prepared to lead and defend our nation and its global allies as Commander-in-Chief from day one. This election is about making sure we have the experienced leadership to guide us to victory in this war, protect the nation against future terrorist attacks, and support our troops and first responders who are on the frontlines of the war. This election will decide whether we choose to fight or announce surrender. It will decide whether we have a president who dangerously weakens U.S. security or strengthens it; whether we will flinch and retreat or fully engage the enemy on multiple fronts. We need decisive leadership with the vision and experience to guide our country and the world through this challenge. Having a courageous Commander-in-Chief who is willing to lead us in this war, rally our democratic allies and defeat our enemy to secure a broader peace is what's at stake in this election. (emphasis mine)
I underlined three things in his policy statement, that I'd like to take issue with:
1. VICTORY: Victory in war is an outmoded concept, and a short-sighted view of what the war even means. What does "victory" in the Iraq war mean exactly, Mr. McCain? The establishment of an American-style democracy in Iraq? That's never worked before. For most of the country's history, Iraq's presidents have been authoritarian dictators occupying an office without a clearly designed constitutional structure. Such presidents exercised all power single-handedly, operating only with the consultation of a small cabinet. Government after government has been overthrown, even prior to Saddam Hussein's accession to power. So what makes us think that we can come in and snap our fingers, and age-old differences between Iraqi power brokers is simply going the way of the wind? How long will we have to occupy Iraq to ensure they play by the rules we set up for them? Iraq is a failed state: its central government is so weak or ineffective that it has little practical control over much of its territory. We plunged it into civil war, and our soldiers are dying there. What do we "win" with "victory?" What's in it for the USA?
2. FULLY ENGAGE THE ENEMY ON MULTIPLE FRONTS: The war in Iraq, which is not against Iraq, but against insurgents, began as a political smokescreen to divert the attention of the American people away from our inability to capture Osama bin-Laden. Our failed war in Afghanistan was met with a failed war in Iraq. Now Mr. McCain wants to engage the enemy (singular), but on multiple fronts? Sounds like Mr. McCain defines "the enemy" as "our many enemies." We could go to war with Iran to get everyone's minds off the debacle in Iraq. What next? Venezuela to forget Iran? North Korea to forget Venezuela? "Do things our way or die" is not an instrument to peace. Previous American leaders effectively dealt with crazies like Muammar Qaddafi, Fidel Castro, Francisco Franco and Idi Amin, all without going to war with them. I don't Mr. McCain has any interest in pursuing peace with our enemies. I think he genuine wants to stay in a perpetual state of war. Maybe it's a holdover from his POW days-- I wasn't in 'Nam, I don't understand.
3. TO SECURE A BROADER PEACE: Again, a reductionist and short-sighted statement. How can one "secure" peace in an unstable world with factions and interest at impasses over limited and fixed resources and borders? A broader peace? Fighting to achieve peace, with all due respect, Mr. McCain, is like fucking to achieve virginity-- it won't work.
So... how do you stop a war? Both Democratic candidates have said they'll bring our troops home. And now that it looks like the only Republican choice will be John McCain... if you want an end to the war, you'll simply have to trust Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
My Choice for President
The MySpace/MTV forum the other day made up my mind on whom I was going to vote for in the upcoming Presidential elections.
Y'all may know I used to work for the Democratic Party. I am an unapologetic social liberal, and I believe in tight, responsible government with progressive fiscal policies and controlled spending. In some respects, I am a conservative. In some respects, I am a socialist. In some respects, I am a radical moderate. I am seeking a true Third Way.
I watched the forum with a mixed group of folks, including supporters of all the various candidates. I had not yet made up my mind, which is rare. I've been voting since 1984, and cannot remember ever getting this close to the polls without having a favored candidate.
As the program unrolled, I watched and listened intently. After that, I reviewed every candidate's web site, and read their "Issues" page.
Personality doesn't come into play for me. I don't care if the President is funny, or funny-looking, or what gender or race they are, or what state they come from or how they talk. It's all about what they say, what ideas they bring to the table, and how well I think they are going to lead.
Although I have a lot of differences with his views, I must pay some respect to Ron Paul. I am very impressed with the way he has wrangled support on the Internet. I wish he were running as a true third-party Libertarian candidate. I think to not do so is a tactical error on his part. He never answered questions that were directed at him, and his answer seemed to be, "Everything will work itself out." That's a great laissez-faire Libertarian attitude, but it won't fly in practical applications.
For example, when asked about dependence on foreign oil, he basically said (I am paraphrasing) that when gas gets to be so expensive that people quit buying it, the car and oil companies will develop alternatives. Is he kidding? He also is talking about shutting down foreign military bases, which sounds good until we need them. I respect his medical background, but he doesn't really seem to have a workable health-care plan other than "save your money." That won't work: my meds alone are over $1200 a month. Unless pharma companies are willing to take smaller profits (yeah, right), I can't afford them without help. So although I respect him, I cannot vote for him.
Romney and McCain didn't participate... that tells me they really don't care about the youth vote, and the youth of this country will have to live with their administration's decisions. I think that was short-sighted.
McCain is a warmonger who wants total victory in Iraq, which means more troops, more money, and more needless death. Anyone should be able to see this tragic debacle is unwinnable. Scratch him.
Romney and Huckabee say they will actively work to overturn Roe v. Wade. That would be a disaster for American women. Huckabee actually was a lot more lucid and less stupid-seeming than I had previously given him credit for, but all his pandering to "Christian values" and talk of "faith" leave a bad taste in my mouth. We need a commander-in-chief, not a pastor-in-chief. I listened as he spoke of widening highways. How about mass transit, and breaking America of its car-oriented culture? But I digress: reproductive freedom is non-negotiable. Romney and Huckabee are toast.
I heard someone say that we don't live in red states and blue states, but purple states. I personally am purple. Social liberalism, is, however, extremely important to me. I don't want my government dictating morality. So I will likely vote Democratic. Now for whom?
That leaves me the two Democrats, whose candidacies are historic in and of themselves. Honestly, I'd said going into it that I would be happy with either of them, and I do think they are each imminently qualified to be president. So which to choose?
Hillary Clinton is a forceful, formidable, admirable woman of strength, and, I think, a great leader. She hit me square in the pocketbook with her idea of making college tuition loans more affordable. Only thing is, she didn't say how she would pay for it.
Her health care plan appeals to me, but so does Obama's. Their differences on this issue are largely semantic.
They both have good GLBT stances, and during the forum, Obama was asked if he supported homosexual marriage, and he quickly and easily said no, but that he was in favor of civil unions. That's enough for me-- one step at a time. That may anger some gays and lesbians, but I think it will setback gay rights to shove things down Americans' throats they just aren't ready for yet. Hillary Clinton has also got a good track record on gay rights.
So there is no litmus test between the two Democrats, leaving me undecided, until Hillary Clinton was asked about electability. That's when it all came together for me.
I like Hillary Clinton. I admire Hillary Clinton. But many Americans don't. She is a divisive personality with a lot of baggage. It was present in how many people were running her down in discussions after the forum ended where I watched it. Hillary's great, but people either love her, or hate her, much the way people were about Dubya in 2004.
The choice suddenly was crystal-clear. I will be voting in today's primary for Senator Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination.
Obama's support base isn't typically black, unlike Jesse Jackson's historic 1984 campaign. He himself is biracial. Plus, he's truly an African-American... his story is much more an immigrant story than a "descendant of poor freed slaves" story. To be sure, there are people who will vote for Obama just because of the color of his skin, but there are also people who will vote for Hillary Clinton just because of her gender. To me, that's an uninformed choice.
The converse is also true: there are people who won't vote for Obama because he's black, or for Clinton because she's a woman. They may feel that way, but I do hope our society in general is socially progressive enough that they won't be able to say it out loud without fear of persecution or ridicule.
Obama's message of change and hope resonates with every ethnicity, every socioeconomic class, every region and every subset of American culture. His multicultural background make him a living embodiment of what America is all about. He's got a lot of ideas with merit, and an undeniable energy and verve that to me are captivating. He's a leader I can get excited about, and he has my support.
If Hillary Clinton is nominated, I will support her, naturally. She's on the right side of my issues. But Senator Clinton often seems to say what is politically expedient. She hedges, flops for audiences and uses weasel-words the same way her husband did, the same way Al Gore did. And mind you, I loved those men, and worked in their campaigns. Barack Obama seems to be steadfast in his message, and has taken some very brave positions, such as opposing the war in Iraq even when most of his own party caved to the Republican agenda. His ethics and job performance have proven beyond reproach. It's hard to find people who have bad things to say about him.
I just think America needs some healing, and Barack Obama is the man for the job. You may agree or disagree. That's your prerogative. Exercise it, and make sure you vote.
Y'all may know I used to work for the Democratic Party. I am an unapologetic social liberal, and I believe in tight, responsible government with progressive fiscal policies and controlled spending. In some respects, I am a conservative. In some respects, I am a socialist. In some respects, I am a radical moderate. I am seeking a true Third Way.
I watched the forum with a mixed group of folks, including supporters of all the various candidates. I had not yet made up my mind, which is rare. I've been voting since 1984, and cannot remember ever getting this close to the polls without having a favored candidate.
As the program unrolled, I watched and listened intently. After that, I reviewed every candidate's web site, and read their "Issues" page.
Personality doesn't come into play for me. I don't care if the President is funny, or funny-looking, or what gender or race they are, or what state they come from or how they talk. It's all about what they say, what ideas they bring to the table, and how well I think they are going to lead.
Although I have a lot of differences with his views, I must pay some respect to Ron Paul. I am very impressed with the way he has wrangled support on the Internet. I wish he were running as a true third-party Libertarian candidate. I think to not do so is a tactical error on his part. He never answered questions that were directed at him, and his answer seemed to be, "Everything will work itself out." That's a great laissez-faire Libertarian attitude, but it won't fly in practical applications.
For example, when asked about dependence on foreign oil, he basically said (I am paraphrasing) that when gas gets to be so expensive that people quit buying it, the car and oil companies will develop alternatives. Is he kidding? He also is talking about shutting down foreign military bases, which sounds good until we need them. I respect his medical background, but he doesn't really seem to have a workable health-care plan other than "save your money." That won't work: my meds alone are over $1200 a month. Unless pharma companies are willing to take smaller profits (yeah, right), I can't afford them without help. So although I respect him, I cannot vote for him.
Romney and McCain didn't participate... that tells me they really don't care about the youth vote, and the youth of this country will have to live with their administration's decisions. I think that was short-sighted.
McCain is a warmonger who wants total victory in Iraq, which means more troops, more money, and more needless death. Anyone should be able to see this tragic debacle is unwinnable. Scratch him.
Romney and Huckabee say they will actively work to overturn Roe v. Wade. That would be a disaster for American women. Huckabee actually was a lot more lucid and less stupid-seeming than I had previously given him credit for, but all his pandering to "Christian values" and talk of "faith" leave a bad taste in my mouth. We need a commander-in-chief, not a pastor-in-chief. I listened as he spoke of widening highways. How about mass transit, and breaking America of its car-oriented culture? But I digress: reproductive freedom is non-negotiable. Romney and Huckabee are toast.
I heard someone say that we don't live in red states and blue states, but purple states. I personally am purple. Social liberalism, is, however, extremely important to me. I don't want my government dictating morality. So I will likely vote Democratic. Now for whom?
That leaves me the two Democrats, whose candidacies are historic in and of themselves. Honestly, I'd said going into it that I would be happy with either of them, and I do think they are each imminently qualified to be president. So which to choose?
Hillary Clinton is a forceful, formidable, admirable woman of strength, and, I think, a great leader. She hit me square in the pocketbook with her idea of making college tuition loans more affordable. Only thing is, she didn't say how she would pay for it.
Her health care plan appeals to me, but so does Obama's. Their differences on this issue are largely semantic.
They both have good GLBT stances, and during the forum, Obama was asked if he supported homosexual marriage, and he quickly and easily said no, but that he was in favor of civil unions. That's enough for me-- one step at a time. That may anger some gays and lesbians, but I think it will setback gay rights to shove things down Americans' throats they just aren't ready for yet. Hillary Clinton has also got a good track record on gay rights.
So there is no litmus test between the two Democrats, leaving me undecided, until Hillary Clinton was asked about electability. That's when it all came together for me.
I like Hillary Clinton. I admire Hillary Clinton. But many Americans don't. She is a divisive personality with a lot of baggage. It was present in how many people were running her down in discussions after the forum ended where I watched it. Hillary's great, but people either love her, or hate her, much the way people were about Dubya in 2004.
The choice suddenly was crystal-clear. I will be voting in today's primary for Senator Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination.
Obama's support base isn't typically black, unlike Jesse Jackson's historic 1984 campaign. He himself is biracial. Plus, he's truly an African-American... his story is much more an immigrant story than a "descendant of poor freed slaves" story. To be sure, there are people who will vote for Obama just because of the color of his skin, but there are also people who will vote for Hillary Clinton just because of her gender. To me, that's an uninformed choice.
The converse is also true: there are people who won't vote for Obama because he's black, or for Clinton because she's a woman. They may feel that way, but I do hope our society in general is socially progressive enough that they won't be able to say it out loud without fear of persecution or ridicule.
Obama's message of change and hope resonates with every ethnicity, every socioeconomic class, every region and every subset of American culture. His multicultural background make him a living embodiment of what America is all about. He's got a lot of ideas with merit, and an undeniable energy and verve that to me are captivating. He's a leader I can get excited about, and he has my support.
If Hillary Clinton is nominated, I will support her, naturally. She's on the right side of my issues. But Senator Clinton often seems to say what is politically expedient. She hedges, flops for audiences and uses weasel-words the same way her husband did, the same way Al Gore did. And mind you, I loved those men, and worked in their campaigns. Barack Obama seems to be steadfast in his message, and has taken some very brave positions, such as opposing the war in Iraq even when most of his own party caved to the Republican agenda. His ethics and job performance have proven beyond reproach. It's hard to find people who have bad things to say about him.
I just think America needs some healing, and Barack Obama is the man for the job. You may agree or disagree. That's your prerogative. Exercise it, and make sure you vote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
