Bring It On! Election 2008

The bold-faced audacity of Obama to think for one minute that he is where he is because of his intellect, his education and his hard work..its(slaps forehead) because he is a black man! Why the fuck didn’t I think of that!..Geraldine did howevav..I hate that I have to even consider taking sides in this fight. Who is more put-upon..a Woman or an African-American? I have said from the get-go that between the two Democratic candidates, I do not have a horse in this race. Neither of these candidates are progressive my dear reader.
I feel that there is very little difference between the programs offered up by HRC and Obama. What differs is the person behind the campaign and the message.

What changed for me is Geraldine Ferraro’s comments the last two days. WTF is she trying to say? Is she saying women are less discriminated against than African-Americans or the opposite because at this point..its hard to say. Is she saying that because Obama is both an African-American and a male, he has no idea what it’s like to be discriminated against just as a woman? Because if the truth be told..

Both women and people of color are discriminated against here in these United States of America. It’s a fucking fact jack. Both are held to a different standard and both are treated as second-class citizens. But back to Geraldine and her sick point of view..

For Ms. Ferraro, a former female candidate for the office of Vice President, to say Obama was getting a ‘gimme’ based solely on his color and sex.. I am fucking pissed beyond recognition my dear reader. As a brown bitch I know both types of bigotry and discrimination..that as a woman and a minority. Lets, just to be clear, revisit what Ms. Ferraro said:

“If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”

There it is..one can not pretend what was said..there it is in black and fucking white..ironically so my dear reader.

What pisses me off beyond words is that Ms. Ferraro makes color and sex an issue all by herself.. Her words are divisive in an important contest where we do not need to do that to ourselves..the Republican’s will do it to us all by themselves when both parties choose their candidates and the final race for President starts in earnest. The Republicans will fling the dirt and make race or sex an issue..you can take that to the fucking bank my dear reader.

In essence..Ms. Ferraro did the heavy lifting for the Republicans. And Hillary isn’t discrediting her words. Hillary isn’t disavowing her bullshit and bravado. And I am so fucking pissed.I could spit nails.

Ms. Ferraro didn’t make this about qualifications..she made it about something that shouldn’t matter in this day and age..she made it about the color of someone’s skin or their gender..or as she so eloquently put it..both.

What pisses me off is that women and minorities are fighting against each other in her world. In my world we all stand together to fight this narrow-minded bullshit. As a woman of color, the color brown, I know what the hell it’s like to fight both of these friggin battles..make no mistake about that my dear reader.

Geraldine Ferraro does not. Lets not make any mistake about that. She is a privileged white woman. Instead of making this a campaign about issues and how each candidate will deal with them..for whatever reason and perhaps on purpose, she changed the subject and made it about something that really doesn’t have a damn thing to do with the job of running our nation.

So when Geraldine Ferraro says that people are discriminating against her and her fuckwitted statement because she is a women..I call bullshit on that crap here and now. She is using the tried and true battle cry of the Republicans..reverse discrimination. Kiss my brown female ass Geraldine. Twice even. This campaign does not need any more divisiveness..no bitch, it does not, especially from the inside of the Democratic party.

If her candidate is so weak that she needs to make the case for gender bias coupled with racial bias..then bitch..we got a problem. But she is not contributing to the ‘conversation’ by pointing her tired-ass finger at Obama for being a Black Male as the reason that her candidate is sucking pond scum at this point and using all types of dirty tricks to turn the tide.

I am sicker by the minute of the methods Hillary and her minions, which of course include Geraldine Ferraro, are using to attempt to turn the tide in her favor. Ms. Ferraro is so full of shit at this point, her eyes better be brown. She is making statements that will only harm the Democratic candidate in the fall…because when it’s all said and done Geraldine..

Your a racist and a misogynistic bag of shit in my humble brown bitch opinion. The only thing you care about at this point..is to make sure HRC wins..at all costs.

And Lady Ferraro..the cost is too high if we allow you to spew your garbage and get away with it. So I for one, am calling bullshit on your bullshit here and now.

Update..here is Ms. Geraldine on Fox Noise..some one tell this woman to stfu please!

Crossposted with brown female pride at Sirens Chronicles and UnCapitalist Journal
Tags: Geraldine Ferraro, Racism, Misogyny

The nastiness kerfuffle between the Obama and Clinton camps continues to draw the media’s attention. The endless words, written on the subject by surreptitious surrogates, are enough to make a political junkie puke. If the victory of one’s chosen candidate is the spoils that result from these unyielding tit for tat exchanges (often engineered), I fear I haven’t the patience to play the game or the willingness to pay the frustration fee.

If this kind of meaningless minutiae were marketable, we’d have the funds to make the national debt dinky. Unfortunately, most of this back and forth is worthless…which means this tidal wave of one-upmanship does little more than eat bandwidth, contribute to the constant carping, and distract us from real issues of real import to real citizens.

Honestly, if the election is to be decided upon whose campaign crossed the oh so often contrived line of civility, we mustn’t really be interested in choosing the most capable candidate. Truth be told, if you follow any individual around long enough, you’re going to hear an array of ad hominem attacks. Requiring that our politicians vigilantly exhibit a level of restraint that we routinely trample with nary an ounce of apprehension is a tragedy wrapped in a farce.

Let me be clear. I’m not excusing inappropriate remarks. Those who make them deserve criticism…but the time spent on that criticism shouldn’t overshadow all else such that the campaign becomes a proxy war waged by mulish wordsmiths bent upon bolstering the believability of their unabashed bias.

In the end, I suspect the focus on crushing the credibility of the other candidate only contributes to the apathy and animosity that is evidenced in our electorate. On the one hand, we’re challenged to decide who is better prepared to answer “the call” at 3:00 AM. On the other, we’re forced to listen to so much nuanced name calling by disingenuous disciples that I’m not sure it’s worthwhile to spend another moment worrying about a hypothetical Hiroshima.

The following sarcastic graphic demonstrates my disgust with the process as well as my suspicion that the battle isn’t about protecting our children; it’s about winning an election. Yes, you can call me a cynic…but keep in mind that you might not be able to reach me…I think I’ve just been disconnected.

3:00 AM - I Know What You Said Last Night:

Cross-posted at Thought Theater

“I think you’ll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say.“He’s never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.” - Hillary Clinton before the Texas and Ohio primaries.

And with that comment, Hillary Clinton proclaimed to the nation that if she can’t have the presidential nomination then the whole Democratic party might as well just vote Republican, because if the choice ends up being between McCain and Obama, well then Hillary thinks that four more years of Bush-like policies are A-OK for America.

Sounds like Hillary has Joe Lieberman for an advisor. If the Democrats don’t give you what is obviously rightfully yours to take, then the hell with them! Better to side with the law-breaking, torture loving, warmongering, Bush GOP than actually listen to the people of this country when they tell you that they prefer someone else for the top job.

Of course, when Hillary makes statements like the one above, it only highlights why so many Democrats-and so many Americans of all political flavors-have thrown their support behind Barack Obama. We don’t want a president who thinks that decades of experience in a crooked political system is a plus. We don’t want another president who refuses to acknowledge the reality of a situation, who thinks that she should just get her way because, by golly, it’s her turn and she’s due. We don’t want another imperialistic attitude sitting in the Oval Office, pretending that things will only be better with her in charge, that no one else (save the opposition party nominee) can quite handle the task. We don’t want another presidential election that boils down to a choice between bad and worse. And this time, we actually have a chance to change those dynamics by giving the nomination to Obama.

But for Hillary the equation is a different one altogether. For Hillary, the question isn’t who can better help to end corruption in government or who can give America back her reputation in the world or even who will inspire Americans to get back to building a better country and world. Nope, for Hillary the only question is “How can I win this thing?” And in answering that question, she shows that for her, winning is the only thing that matters.

Debate after debate has proven to voters that on many domestic issues, both Clinton and Obama share similar goals, varying mostly in the details of policy than in the necessity of movement. But under the surface is where the differences lie, and voters have figured out that where Obama seeks to empower us all, Hillary simply seeks power for its own sake-and for her own sense of personal destiny.

Since falling behind Obama in the delegate count, Hillary has pulled out all the stops to paint Obama as unprepared for the task of being president, hoping that by highlighting his so-called “inexperience” that voters will flock under her banner. It simply hasn’t worked. Even her primary victories in Texas, Ohio, and Rhode Island were slim victories and weren’t enough to even narrow the gap in the delegate count. But what Hillary seems to ignore at this stage of the game is the fact that many, many Republicans are less than satisfied with McCain as their nominee. These GOPers are now watching the Democratic race and asking themselves a serious question-could they vote for a Democrat? For many, if the candidate is Hillary the answer in a resounding “NO.” But if it is Obama, there are many who will jump ship and vote for a Democrat. At least they would if the vote was held today. But if Hillary-who they will never vote for in the general election-continues to portray Obama as a weak choice for Democrats, she is also hurting him for the general election and giving McCain a better shot of winning the prize. For someone who claims to despise the Bush Administration, stumping (even discreetly) for the GOP nominee who puts forth ambitions not so unlike those of Bush seems an odd way of telling voters that they should pick you. Especially Democratic voters who would rather sit in a pit of vipers than give the White House to another Bush-like contender.

Michael Gerson said it well in this Washington Post article:

“Though it is increasingly unlikely, Clinton may still have a path to the nomination — and what a path it is. She merely has to puncture the balloon of Democratic idealism; sully the character of a good man; feed racial tensions within her party; then eke out a win with the support of unelected superdelegates, thwarting the hopes of millions of new voters who would see an inspiring young man defeated by backroom arm-twisting and arcane party rules.”

Indeed. And what a presidential path to victory that is.

But as she keeps on campaigning against Obama, she keeps highlighting her own presidential unworthiness by trying to paint Obama as some untested, incapable hack who showed up at the last minute and fooled us all into taking away what was and should be hers and hers alone.

Like when she tried to throw light on a land purchase Obama made. Obama acknowledged that the deal was a bad idea and has taken responsibility for his actions. He’s not denying the mistake, not battling to have records hidden. And yet for Hillary Clinton, years were spent examining a little land deal called Whitewater, years which she fought and fought to keep the whole thing under wraps.

And this whole “experience” thing is a real laugh too, especially if you look back to the 1992 campaign of her husband. Bill Clinton was so overmatched by the senior George Bush when it came to government service and experience that the Clinton’s had to portray his candidacy around a different theme- something they called “change.” Funny how what seemed such a good idea in 1992 (and was a good idea by the way) is now some kind of harbinger of failure if Obama wins the nomination. And let’s be real here- Hillary isn’t all that much more “experienced” at being president that anyone else who has never been president.

And then there is Hillary’s tendency towards secrecy. In a move that likely inspired Dick Cheney’s own energy meetings, Hillary has yet to fully release the documents related to her own health care meetings in the early 1990’s. She has yet to release her income tax returns even though Obama has done so and even though when running for Senate in 2000 she screamed about how her opponent didn’t release his returns. A small bit of hypocrisy that reveals a lot about the candidate herself.

And now her latest flop is with regards to the Florida and Michigan primaries-she “won” both events, despite a pledge not to campaign and now wants those delegates added to her tally. Of course, she and all the other candidates knew well in advance that those states’ delegates were not going to count because of some disagreement with the DNC and the stat Democratic parties. Obama (and the others still in the race at the time) followed the rules and stayed out of the states, in Michigan no name but Hillary even appeared on the ballot. But now that she is losing what is rightfully hers, she wants to change the game and get those delegates in. Tell me again how Hillary would be a different, better president that Bush? After all, lying and cheating and ignoring the rules doesn’t seem to have made this country a better place in the last eight years.

And for goodness sakes, I’m not even mentioning her many corporate ties that make her incapable of legislating purely for her constituents, or her support for the war in Iraq, or her willingness to ignore the massive abuses of law perpetrated by Team Bush.

All grace and honorable when she was the presumed “inevitable” nominee, Hillary Clinton coming in second isn’t such a noble character. I suspect though that this is a more true representation of who Hillary Clinton really is, and of who she would be as president of this country.

And these are just some more reasons why I support Barack Obama.

(cross posted at Common Sense)

They say all politics is local, right? That may be true for school boards and city councils, and it might even hold for national congressional elections too. But when it comes to U.S. presidential elections, there’s nothing local about them, at least not for the rest of the world. Being the planets lone superpower means eyes from around the globe scrutinize our choice of leadership. People across the globe understand that the American president shapes the lives of everyone, not just Americans.

To say that world opinion of America has degraded under the hand of George W. Bush may be an understatement, but I’m not going to belabor that point today. Suffice it to say that Bush has undermined our national reputation even among our allies during his tenure, both with his belligerance and his policies, and his concerted lack of curiosoty and ability reality haven’t helped things much either. Where this country used to be viewed as a beacon of hope, promise, and freedom by the nations of the world, the United States today is viewed with skepticism by many, with scorn by many more. Instead of a country that helps, we’re perceived as a country that takes and pushes its way through the global arena. Rule of Law? Not under this president. America may still be king in terms of brute force, but our prestige is sorely bruised, and declining world opinion makes it harder for America to lead the way towards a better world future. The damage Bush has done to America at home has been grave. But the damage he has done to America abroad has probably been even worse for this country.

American tend to discount the thoughts and concerns of the rest of the world in most everything we do. Hell, throw down a world map and most Americans probably couldn’t find more than half a dozen foreign countries without computerized assistance. So it’s only natural that when electing our president we think only about what a person offers us here at home, completely discounting the importance of what that person could offer us around the world.

The truth of the matter is that the American president sets the tone for how every other country will act towards American inspired goals and ideas. The world knows that America has the might to make happen the things it wants to make happen, but it isn’t might that shows leadership. True leadership relies on both might and the ability to gather partners around a common goal. And while might may force others to the table, albeit with a sour taste in their mouths, true statesmanship allows the participants to sit at the table both eager to listen and willing to participate in our goals, not out of fear of retribution but out of eagerness to forge a better path.

Which bring me around to the point of this post. World opinion surrounding the current U.S. presidential elections shows excitement about the possibility of Barack Obama becoming our next president. Like many Americans, Obama is perceived as a chance to change not just the direction of American politics and policies but the face of America in general. To many abroad, McCain looks a lot like Bush, with his continued support for the Iraq War and the broader Bush War on Terrorism and all its faulty premises to his Cold War mentality towards foes and U.S. foreign strategy in a world that has moved on. Similarly, Hillary Clinton is hardly viewed as the groundbreaking candidate abroad, especially in areas of concern like the Middle East. Remember that during her husbands reign of power, attacks in Iraq continued the war of the first President Bush. She carries the baggage of Bill Clinton’s presidency around with her whether she wants to or not, and despite her husbands popularity in general, not all things “Clinton” are viewed favorably around the globe.

But in Obama, non-Americans see a glimmer of hope that under his leadership America could not only regain her standing as a right and honorable nation among the world community, but that she could again assume a leadership role in solving world problems like global climate change, energy diversity, and a path towards global prosperity and peace. But don’t take my word for it. Read what people are saying themselves…

From Australia:

He’s (Obama) cosmopolitan, he offers a fresh framework for conceptualising global issues, and he is a defence against fundamentalist Christianity in the US.

This quote from an older Australian male living in Sydney is a good example of the symbolism surrounding the Obama “nomination”: “I think Barack Obama represents the best hope for a world entering a dangerous state of confrontation between Islam and Christianity. Obama is a Christian but he had Muslim parents and grew up in the world’s most populous Islamic nation, Indonesia …”

From England:

For the rest of us the Obama campaign is more than about mere American domestic politics. That moment on a freezing January day in Washington when a black man and his family stand on the steps of the Capitol to take the presidential oath will be flashed up all over the world. The wordless message to young black people from New York to Nairobi, Johannesburg to Brixton will be of a whole new world of personal possibilities. America’s sense of itself will be redeemed. The way that the world sees it will be transformed.

From Russia:

After presenting the question to nearly 50 Russians, the answer is clear: one hundred percent of our not-so-random sampling said Senator Barack Obama is their first choice. The reasons are varied. Some of Russia Blog’s Russian friends have had great experiences in the U.S., and they genuinely believe that the first-term junior senator from Illinois is a leader who is capable of bringing positive change to America. They like Mr. Obama’s goal of withdrawing the troops from Iraq and agree with his health care and education policies. Other Russians are more concerned about Russia, and don’t like the anti-Putin rhetoric of Senators John McCain and Hillary Clinton. (It is important to remember that Vladimir Putin still enjoys nearly 80 percent approval rating, and most Russians view themselves as enjoying more freedom and wealth today than ever before in their country’s thousand-year history.)

Russians have been keeping their savings in U.S. currency for over a decade. Some Russians believe that America’s aggressive foreign policy, negative image abroad, and high military spending contributed to the weakening of the dollar. Whether there is a defensible correlation or not, even if Mr. Obama spends more federal budget money on healthcare and education, the Russians in our informal poll hope that withdrawal from Iraq and increased “friendliness” of the United States abroad will help to strengthen the U.S. currency.

From France:

In an informal poll of the French Chapter of the Sons of the American Revolution. Their members are descendants of French aristocrats who fought in the American Revolution. They are about as conservative a group as you can find in France, and yet they all preferred Obama. And they are not alone. The French as a whole say Obama is their favorite candidate. He has caught their imagination with his image and soaring oratory. When they talk about him, they almost always mention Kennedy. Even French Socialists, who chose a woman to run as their candidate in France’s presidential election last year, prefer Obama to Hillary Clinton by a slight margin.

And Iran:

“…the whispers of a Democratic candidate winning the US presidential election could soften the dark and frozen atmosphere in Iran. Iran’s current president - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - was elected two years ago to face the foreign threat of having Iran considered a part of the ‘axis of evil’. Two years ago, Iran could have been attacked any moment, and a person was chosen to counter the foreign pressure. If the foreign threat diminishes, a slow democratic movement can go forward. Obama’s ideas on foreign affairs and Iran make reformists happy… maybe some do not know but peace and dialogue is like poison for a group whose political existence relies on violence and war.”

Now I’ll happily grant that these few glimpses into the minds of others across the globe do not equate to some kind of wholesale international support for Barack Obama, but if these are the average thoughts of average people across the globe then the international outlook for America with Obama at the helm could be promising.

As important as what a candidate can do for Americans at home is what can a candidate bring to America from abroad. Obama hasn’t the international political experience that Hillary has, but he has more practical international experience borne out of living in several foreign countries. Obama hasn’t the “war toughness” of McCain, but he has a more mature concept of when and how to use the power of the sword. Obama brings a face of hope (that a black man can become president in a country born from prejudice and slavery); he brings youthfulness (compared to the 72 year old McCain and the 60 year old Clinton); he offers infectuous ambition (challenging average citizens to help colve national and international problems); and he brings the message that in a new world, we must sometimes cast off the oppressive bonds that create gridlock, especially when we’ve been bound up so long we barely recognize the chains for what they are.

How the world perceives America is directly related to how they see our president. Right now, we are the bully in the playground and foreign attitudes towards us and our policies are very low. As important to solving our national and international problems is the face of our leader. Electing Obama will go a long way towards repairing American prestige abroad. That’s something that McCain and Hillary can’t do, not so long as they cling to the old way of governing-which they seem very likely to do.

(cross posted at Common Sense)

And it’s about time. NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) was supposed to provide hundreds of thousands of new jobs in America; and higher wages for American workers. And — get this! — NAFTA was going to boost the economy in Mexico so that impoverished Mexicans would no longer have to sneak across the American border. Hahahahahahaha.

You know that sheepish beat-yourself-up feeling you get after you’ve sent $50 to a post office box so you can find out about stuffing envelopes at home for thousands of dollars a week? Well, that’s how gullible Congress was when they bought this bill of goods in 1994.

This agreement has been etched in stone all during Clinton’s and Dumbya’s presidencies. But now Obama and Hillary (it has sort of a hollow ring to it in her case) are both talking about rewriting NAFTA so that it includes workers’ safety and environmental protections.

NAFTA was rammed through Congress by some of the world’s largest corporations. Undoubtedly these same 800-pound gorillas will throw their weight around if the next president tries to renegotiate the agreement.

McCain is taking the opposite side, warning of the dire consequences that will occur if NAFTA is renegotiated.

McCain said tampering with NAFTA could jeopardize the crucial military support we’ve been getting from Canada. Gee, I thought Canada was just a bunch of anti-war potsmoking gay-marrying socialists. Isn’t that what Rush O’Hannity is always saying?

McCain needs to get his Talking Points straight.