The Free Speech Zone

Sunday, February 24, 2008

Political thoughts through the fog of a hangover

I thought I’d take a break from lazing my day away (i.e. trying not to move too much because I’m still hungover from last night’s Vital birthday party- you were there, weren’t you?!) to offer up my two cents worth on the weekend’s political news. Because, really, I know you all can’t live without my opinions for more than a few days- who can blame you for that?!

Anyway, self-delusions aside, I personally think the big news of the weekend is Ralph Nader’s entry into the race. I don’t think Nader himself is going to put much of a dent in the election, but as I noted in an earlier blog, I’ve been waiting for a third party candidate to pop up because both parties are so divided about their chosen candidates. I wonder if Nader’s presence will pave the way for someone who has more of a chance with independents and moderates. It’d be interesting if there were.

My favorite political bit of the weekend was actually a skit on Saturday Night Live. If you haven’t seen it yet, go see it here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INICB1BFhCI. It’s a great skit, and it’s always fun to see politicians poke fun at themselves, particularly a conservative.

And my least favorite political crap (and it is crap, I think) of the weekend is the total disintegration of all goodwill between Hillary and Obama. Yeah, I know there’s been tension in recent weeks; I know that things have been getting progressively worse, as all of us here in Wisconsin can certainly attest to. But, overall, there’s been at least a modicum of respect. Until now. We’ve got supposed false mailers sent out by Obama; Clinton waving the mailer and calling Obama out; we’ve got accusations of attack ads funded by private organizations (hello? pot meet kettle); attacks on Obama’s patriotism because he doesn’t wear a flag pin (wtf?); attacks on Clinton for the attacks on Obama. It’s an ugly circle, and if it doesn’t stop soon, it’s going to tear the Democratic Party apart, and you know, I just don’t want to hand over another election to war-monger assholes.

I have a little hope that the Texas and Ohio primaries will lean far enough toward Obama and Hillary will drop out of the race. As a party, we can’t have this kind of infighting all the way up to the convention in August. And as a country, I don’t think it’s going to do anyone any good. God knows, if this crap continues it might actually give Nader a chance in hell.

(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

Behind the numbers

I wrote in my last blog about Clinton’s seeming dismissal of large groups of Democratic voters, and it appears from yesterday’s primary that I’m not the only person who feels this way. Obama took Wisconsin yesterday by a pretty large percentage (58% to Clinton’s 41%). Beyond the numbers, though, there are some other pieces of significant trivia (at least, in my opinion).

If you look at how the numbers break down by county, Obama won almost every one of them. This shows a wide-spread support for him over Clinton across the state, not just in the cities. The exit polls also showed that he’s cutting into Clinton’s base, taking larger percentages of women and lower to lower-middle class white voters than he was in earlier primaries. To me, this indicates one of two things: Obama is truly the candidate who is going to bring the party together (as well as bring in independents and liberal Republicans) or Clinton truly shot herself in the foot by failing to campaign adequately here. We won’t really know until Texas and Ohio which is the case, which makes those primaries all the more important.

What excites me most about the numbers, though, is not the Obama won by such a large margin, but that so many people went out to vote in the primary. Nearly half of all registered voters in Wisconsin voted yesterday. That’s an amazing percentage for a primary. I’ve said since early on this election season that one of the most interesting things, to me, was that the candidates seem to be inspiring people, encouraging them to get involved. Sure, maybe we’re all out voting because we’re so glad to be rid of the tyranny of Bush soon, but we’re actually voting. People are talking about politics instead of American Idol. We’re getting involved, and, for political nuts like me, that is super exciting.

Numbers aside, the next two weeks are going to really determine alot for the Democratic Party. How negative the race becomes is going to determine how ugly things will get within the party; how the debates go this week will either give Clinton fodder for more attacks against Obama’s lack of solutions or will give Obama room to fight her attacks. The debate over the superdelegates will continue, and how that goes in the next two weeks is going to help determine the nominee (and how badly the party may split). There are also some key endorsements left to be had: here in Wisconsin, many of us (including me) are waiting for Feingold’s endorsement; Gore and Edwards have also yet to endorse a candidate. It’ll be interesting to see if they pick a side or wait the process out. (A side not- the Teamsters endorsed Obama today).

For now, though, Wisconsin can be proud of their role in the political process; we’ve had our turn, and now we get to wait and see what happens. I, for one, can’t wait!

(1) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Saturday, February 16, 2008

The delegate race- who matters?

Talk of the superdelegates is all the rage, and I just don’t want to be left out of the frenzy! Actually, that’s not true. I hadn’t planned to write about the superdelegates or any kind of delegates, actually, because it’s everywhere right now- blogs and mainstream news outlets alike. Most of you have already heard the controversy by now and you may even have an opinion on it, so I’m just going to leave all of that alone. Instead of rehashing that crap, I want to point out a couple of things that you may have missed. I would have missed them myself if I hadn’t been watching Olbermann last night, and browsing the ‘net this morning, I couldn’t find these quote anywhere else and had to go back to Olbermann to get them down.

Anywho- here’s my favorite. From Mark Penn (Clinton’s chief strategist): “Could we possibly have a nominee who hasn’t won any of the significant states- outside of Illinois? That raises some serious questions about Senator Obama.”

Um? Call me crazy, but is he actually saying that the twenty-one other states Obama won aren’t significant? Is he actually stupid enough to dismiss that many voters simply because they don’t live in big states? For a chief strategist, that seems like really dumb strategy. Saying these votes (and voters) don’t matter is a great way to send them to the GOP in November and sure fire way to incense people to really turn away from the Clinton camp. Add to that their big push (and behind the scenes wooing) of the superdelegates, and the message seems to be that only important people, only people with power or in big states matter. Is that why she’s not bothering to really campaign personally here in Wisconsin? Are we insignificant, too?

My next favorite quote is from Bill. Let me preface this, by saying I like Bill Clinton. I cast my first vote for him when he ran for his second term. But, I don’t like the way he’s being used to campaign for his wife. Dismissing the caucuses, he says, “The caucuses aren’t good for her. They disproportionately favor upper-income voters who, who, don’t really need a president but feel like they need a change.” So, um, caucus voters are...insignificant? I’m catching a theme here: if the votes don’t go Hillary’s way, then they don’t matter. That sounds really mature. Just like the leader of our country should sound, definitely.

And then, let’s throw in Michigan and Florida. Clinton’s camp is really pushing for the delegates in those states to count (they’re significant, after all); never mind the DNC’s warnings and rules, and certainly never mind the fact that Obama wasn’t even on the Michigan ballot. The delegates in those significant states should be counted, damn it, right now. Not at convention where they could be divvied up, not after a revote following DNC rules. Right now! Again, very mature.

I have alot of respect for the Clintons. I admire what Hillary has managed to do, particularly in the Senate when she was able to step out of Bill’s shadow a little and be her own person. But I don’t respect the campaign she’s running; I don’t respect the nonsense that’s being spewed by her people (including her husband). And I have to wonder if her decline in the polls these last weeks is because people are seeing her the way I am: too desperate to win to run the race with integrity and dignity. But, what do I know, I’m probably insignificant, too.

(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Friday, February 15, 2008

The debate debate

Last night, Hillary’s new Wisconsin ad came on tv and it prompted a discussion: is Obama actually in the wrong for turning down the Marquette debate? For those of you who have no idea what I’m talking about, a little background. Marquette University issued an invitation to both Clinton and Obama to participate in a debate sometime before the Wisconsin primary on February 19th. Clinton accepted; after a few days, Obama declined. She’s currently running an ad here that portrays his refusal as fear of actual discussion of important issues like health care and home foreclosures.

So, why did he decline? Without hearing it directly from the horse’s mouth, I can only speculate based on the comments I’ve read from his staff. There have already been eighteen Democratic debates (a number that amazes me, really; does anyone remember such a debate heavy primary season?) and there are two more on the schedule, including one two days after the Wisconsin primary. Obama’s camp claims a need to spend more time at town halls, meeting with actual voters here in Wisconsin. To be fair, that’s what he’s been doing, too. He’s had two big appearances here in the Milwaukee area this week, as well as in Madison, Racine, Osh Kosh and Green Bay (and I don’t know where else). He’s taking questions from these town hall type rallies and doing interviews with local news media. The argument, then, that he doesn’t want to discuss the issues in Wisconsin doesn’t seem particularly compelling.

Nor does it seem that Clinton is more willing to discuss these important issues. In fact, as of today, she has yet to appear personally in Wisconsin (unless maybe I missed it, which, hey, is possible). Chelsea and Bill have been here, but she’s not scheduled to appear until Saturday when she’ll speak at a function alongside Obama. Instead, she’s been spending the week campaigning heavily in Texas because it’s one of her last, big hopes. As a Wisconsin voter, her lack of appearances, combined with her negative attack ad, don’t really endear me to her. What’s her stand on the issues, I have to ask. We’re hearing from Obama directly; and sure, it’s in speeches, but we’re also hearing from him as he’s answering questions and as his campaign reaches out directly to voters. Not seeing that same effort from Clinton, her attack of his debate denial seems like a school-yard taunt, like a spoiled child stomping her feet and crying, “it’s not fair.”

Sure, I’d love to see the two debate here in Wisconsin. And sure, Obama’s refusal doesn’t exactly help his pr. But, I have to say, in his shoes, I think I might say enough is enough with twenty debates on the schedule, too. The debates, so often, are the same: the same questions with the same candidates is only going to offer so much insight into who they are and what they stand for. The only real interest in the debates of late has been whether they’ll be playing nice or dirty, and personally, I have yet to be enlightened on either of their views during any of the debates.

Who wins the debate debate will be decided in a few days, I guess, and then we’ll see how wrong Obama was in his refusal or how wrong Clinton was in restricting her Wisconsin campaigning to family speeches and attack ads. I definitely know how my vote will be cast.

(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Thursday, February 14, 2008

McCain gives a thumbs up to torture

There’s so much juicy political stuff going on right now (like Obama kicking some serious primary tail, like the upcoming Wisconsin primary, like how disappointed I am to not be able to attend any of this week’s Milwaukee big-wig appearances) that it’s hard to narrow the field down and pick just the right topic. Or, it was until I saw this article from Think Progress: http://thinkprogress.org/2008/02/13/mccain-waterboarding-fail/.

The most important thing to note is that the ban on waterboarding included in this provision is meant to put some kind of restriction on torture-happy government. I’m all for this. In fact, I’m pretty disappointed that it’s taken this long for such a measure to get this far. Rumors that Bush will veto make it all the more important for our legislators to stand up for what’s right and just instead of cowtowing to the President and his cronies. (why do so many vote against this? anyone have a good answer for this?)

What I found disturbing about the piece, though, is the indication that McCain has completely gone over to the darkside. We’ve had other indicators, of course, like that whole it’s okay to be in Iraq for a thousand years or the disturbing picture of his hugging President Bush, but I think this one pretty much takes the cake. A former POW, aka former torture victim, who had previously spoken against waterboarding and spoken for implementing set standards for the treatment of POW’s and foreign suspects, has now decided that waterboarding is okay with him.

The good news, I guess, is that if McCain wins we know what to expect: four more just like that last eight. Why doesn’t that scare more people?

(1) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink