Sunday night, I sat down to watch the second Presidential debate. At least, that was the plan.
I watched in hopes of getting an idea of specific policy points from the candidates, specific arguments in support of their stands on the issues. You know, an actual debate.
What I saw instead was more akin to an elementary schoolyard war of words: "Did not!" "Did too!" "I know I am, but what are you?" "Takes one to know one."
Beyond that, Sunday night's debate seemed an attempt by one candidate to browbeat and bully the other candidate (as well as the moderators) into submission through the use of continued interruption.
After 40-minutes, I'd had enough and could no longer watch. I knew I would get nothing of substance from the debate. Instead, I would only get more of what passes these days for political theater or reality TV. If I wanted either of those, I would watch an episode of Madam Secretary or Survivor. (For the record, I concluded that Clinton's non-answers were closer to being on-topic than were Trump's, as he seemed to only be interested in talking about emails.)
I also had a pretty good sense of how the day-after debate news cycle would run. Trump supporters would declare him yet again as the debate winner while hammering the moderators for being members of the "liberal media" and Clinton supporters, something Trump himself set the stage for when he complained about the debate being "three against one."
From the vantage point of my easy chair, it seemed the moderators were only trying, with limited success, to do their jobs. They have basically four responsibilities: ask questions; try to keep candidates on topic; try to get candidates to keep their answers within predetermined time constraints; and perhaps most importantly, keep candidates from interrupting while another candidate is speaking.
I give the moderators a B-plus for effort and a D-minus for execution, although the lack of execution is not really their fault given that they have no power to truly control the candidates' behavior or actions during the debate.
Donald Trump has taken Teddy Roosevelt's "bully pulpit" and inverted it, turning it into a pulpit from which to bully those who disagree with him. His behavior during the debates seriously suggests Trump would be unable and, perhaps worse, unwilling as President to listen to or consider opposing viewpoints and scenarios from advisers.
A President has to be able to consider all options before becoming locked in on a course of action and must be able to change tactic when a specific action is clearly not working. Trump's actions, words, and behavior during the campaign suggest he would be unable and unwilling to make such changes and would instead "double down" on the action or tactic already shown as not working.
I do not think Trump is capable of or is willing to change his behavior and demeanor before the third Presidential debate in one week's time. At least not without some help in the form of a change to the debate rules.
This leads me to a suggestion I humorously made on Facebook but one which I think deserves some serious consideration. This will require some real strength of spirit on the part of moderator Chris Wallace of Fox News and debate organizers. I don't expect such strength, but in the spirit of hope springing eternal, here goes.
First, enforce the two-minute limit of candidate responses. The two-minute clock located in the candidate's line of sight is clearly not working in and of itself. How to remedy this? At the two-minute mark, the moderator says "fifteen seconds" to give the candidate a chance to wrap up their remarks. At the 2:15 mark, the candidate's microphone is turned off and not turned back on until it is the candidate's turn to respond to another question.
Second, keep candidates on topic. How can a moderator do this, you ask? Especially when candidates seem to think (based on past Presidential debate history) they can simply take any question in whatever direction they want to go? Enter the microphone strategy again.
If/When a candidate begins to veer completely away from a question's topic, the moderator should remind the candidate once to return to topic. If/When that fails, the candidate's microphone should be turned off (I think you're beginning to see a trend here), and the moderator should say, "If you are not going to answer the question, we will move on" to either the other candidate's answer or to another question.
Third, keep candidates from interrupting one another during answers. The first offense should result in the moderator politely asking the offending candidate to refrain until it is his or her turn to respond. The second response should result in a candidate's microphone being turned off, with no further warning, until it is his or her turn to speak. This process should be automatically repeated (i.e., the microphone turned off without warning) for the remainder of the debate whenever a candidate interrupts.
While these proposals are designed specifically with Donald Trump and his verbal-bullying tactics in mind, they should be applied equally to Hillary Clinton should she transgress. I have no hope of these ideas actually being implemented, but they would, even if artificially, restore something sadly lacking in the debates and in the overall campaign, civility. (Of course, they could also result in some truly entertaining political theater should Trump storm off the stage because he isn't being allowed to rampage through the debate like a bull in a china shop.)
Based on the 40-minutes of the debate I watched Sunday night and the numerous Internet memes I've seen on Facebook, I'd say civility is something we are sadly in need of in this election year. However, I think it is safe to say that one has better odds of winning the lottery than of witnessing anything resembling true civil discourse during the remainder of the 2016 Presidential campaign.
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hillary Clinton. Show all posts
Wednesday, October 12, 2016
Tuesday, September 27, 2016
#212 - Making The Best of a Bad Situation
I've been thinking about this post off and on for a while, eight weeks to be exact. That's how long it has been since my last post.
Part of that delay is not knowing exactly what to write about. Part of it is due to everyday life getting in the way, but part of it is knowing I needed to write this while dreading it at the same time.
I don't fool myself into thinking that I have many readers of this blog. However, I'm pretty sure that the few readers I do have are not all aligned politically, culturally, religiously, or any other -ly. (Which is why I normally shy away from writing about politics, in particular.) So, I suspect whatever I have to say in the following paragraphs will not be agreed with or appreciated by all.
It has taken me until this day, exactly six weeks before election day to firmly decide which candidate for President would receive my vote. For several months, I had convinced myself that I would vote for one of the third-party candidates, a refusal, if you will, to vote for the lesser of two evils.
Having lived through a number of Presidential elections now, it seems that too many of them have been a choice between the lesser of two evils, regardless of which side of the ideological spectrum you stand on. This coming election may yet be the clearest example of that.
On the one hand, you have Hillary Clinton, the first woman Presidential nominee from a major political party. She is shrewd, clever, intelligent, and also calculating, possibly devious, and perhaps a bit disingenuous. I firmly believe she moved many of her positions to the left because of the candidacy of Bernie Sanders.
I don't really trust Hillary Clinton to do many of the things she says she will, even if Congress were inclined to go along. I suspect she will only do what she thinks she has to do to win and stay in power.
Now, before I am accused of being misogynistic, let me say that two of my favorite bosses during my working career were women. Let also say that, in spite of my misgivings and mistrust of her, I will be voting for Hillary Clinton in November.
The simple reason is that, on the other side of the ticket we have Donald Trump, a man who wouldn't know a fact if it bit him in the ass. Just as I firmly believe that Hillary Clinton is a politician in the worst sense of the word (I know some don't think there is any other), I also believe Donald Trump is a liar and a cheat (his good points) as well as a racist, a bully, and a misogynist. Not to mention a complete and utter egomaniac.
Trump has changed direction on various issues and topics so many times over the years, I'm not sure he could find north on a compass if someone pointed it out to him. (Others have documented some of these reversals and apparent "lapses of memory," so I won't bother here.) He speaks for whites afraid of losing their all out of proportion privilege and power and promises things he knows he can never deliver. (Just how will he "make" Mexico pay for his proposed wall, anyway? Does he plan to declare war on that country?)
Donald Trump is a bit like this century's version of Joseph McCarthy, he of the Communist witch hunt fame from the 1950s. Trump makes wild accusations, which he then fails to back up and says he did and said one thing when the record clearly shows he did and said the exact opposite (President Obama "birther" issue, anyone?).
Donald Trump is like a David Duke wet dream, promising to restore an America that thankfully died long ago, one where white men were in complete control, women knew their place, and minorities were treated as the second-class citizens he seems to believe them to be.
Trump plays upon the fears of whites who see the world changing in ways they don't understand, of gun owners who believe their rights are being taken away (even though that won't happen), of tinfoil hat wearers sure the government is out to get them, of and of individualists who believe we can return to the days of the open West when people were free (supposedly) to do what they wanted and make their own way, including those opposed to federal government regulation of any kind.
This latter group fails to understand that clean air and water are too important to leave to individual states and fails to accept that what one state does can and will impact its neighbor, if not now, somewhere down the line. After all, air and water to not recognize artificial boundaries drawn on a piece of paper.
For some time, I considered voting for Jill Stein of the Green Party. Her views, especially on the environment, align with mine closest of any of the candidates. Since I live in Idaho, I figured my vote would not help elect anyone anyway, especially since I never had any intention of voting for Trump, his numerous robo-calls (especially at meal times) not withstanding.
In the end, however, I decided I would hold my nose and, despite my misgivings about what exactly she stands for, vote for Hillary Clinton. Because, while I'm not sure what Clinton might do as President in terms of policy, I feel confident that I know exactly what a Trump Presidency would lead to, and that vision scares the hell out of me.
Part of that delay is not knowing exactly what to write about. Part of it is due to everyday life getting in the way, but part of it is knowing I needed to write this while dreading it at the same time.
I don't fool myself into thinking that I have many readers of this blog. However, I'm pretty sure that the few readers I do have are not all aligned politically, culturally, religiously, or any other -ly. (Which is why I normally shy away from writing about politics, in particular.) So, I suspect whatever I have to say in the following paragraphs will not be agreed with or appreciated by all.
It has taken me until this day, exactly six weeks before election day to firmly decide which candidate for President would receive my vote. For several months, I had convinced myself that I would vote for one of the third-party candidates, a refusal, if you will, to vote for the lesser of two evils.
Having lived through a number of Presidential elections now, it seems that too many of them have been a choice between the lesser of two evils, regardless of which side of the ideological spectrum you stand on. This coming election may yet be the clearest example of that.
On the one hand, you have Hillary Clinton, the first woman Presidential nominee from a major political party. She is shrewd, clever, intelligent, and also calculating, possibly devious, and perhaps a bit disingenuous. I firmly believe she moved many of her positions to the left because of the candidacy of Bernie Sanders.
I don't really trust Hillary Clinton to do many of the things she says she will, even if Congress were inclined to go along. I suspect she will only do what she thinks she has to do to win and stay in power.
Now, before I am accused of being misogynistic, let me say that two of my favorite bosses during my working career were women. Let also say that, in spite of my misgivings and mistrust of her, I will be voting for Hillary Clinton in November.
The simple reason is that, on the other side of the ticket we have Donald Trump, a man who wouldn't know a fact if it bit him in the ass. Just as I firmly believe that Hillary Clinton is a politician in the worst sense of the word (I know some don't think there is any other), I also believe Donald Trump is a liar and a cheat (his good points) as well as a racist, a bully, and a misogynist. Not to mention a complete and utter egomaniac.
Trump has changed direction on various issues and topics so many times over the years, I'm not sure he could find north on a compass if someone pointed it out to him. (Others have documented some of these reversals and apparent "lapses of memory," so I won't bother here.) He speaks for whites afraid of losing their all out of proportion privilege and power and promises things he knows he can never deliver. (Just how will he "make" Mexico pay for his proposed wall, anyway? Does he plan to declare war on that country?)
Donald Trump is a bit like this century's version of Joseph McCarthy, he of the Communist witch hunt fame from the 1950s. Trump makes wild accusations, which he then fails to back up and says he did and said one thing when the record clearly shows he did and said the exact opposite (President Obama "birther" issue, anyone?).
Donald Trump is like a David Duke wet dream, promising to restore an America that thankfully died long ago, one where white men were in complete control, women knew their place, and minorities were treated as the second-class citizens he seems to believe them to be.
Trump plays upon the fears of whites who see the world changing in ways they don't understand, of gun owners who believe their rights are being taken away (even though that won't happen), of tinfoil hat wearers sure the government is out to get them, of and of individualists who believe we can return to the days of the open West when people were free (supposedly) to do what they wanted and make their own way, including those opposed to federal government regulation of any kind.
This latter group fails to understand that clean air and water are too important to leave to individual states and fails to accept that what one state does can and will impact its neighbor, if not now, somewhere down the line. After all, air and water to not recognize artificial boundaries drawn on a piece of paper.
For some time, I considered voting for Jill Stein of the Green Party. Her views, especially on the environment, align with mine closest of any of the candidates. Since I live in Idaho, I figured my vote would not help elect anyone anyway, especially since I never had any intention of voting for Trump, his numerous robo-calls (especially at meal times) not withstanding.
In the end, however, I decided I would hold my nose and, despite my misgivings about what exactly she stands for, vote for Hillary Clinton. Because, while I'm not sure what Clinton might do as President in terms of policy, I feel confident that I know exactly what a Trump Presidency would lead to, and that vision scares the hell out of me.
Thursday, April 16, 2015
#184 - The Circus is Back in Town
(imagine calliope music in the background)
Step right up folks! See the amazing tap dancing presidential candidates. Watch in wonder as they spout platitudes and verbally slam one another with half-baked innuendo and overwrought criticism.
Yes, the political circus is back in towns all across America as the political machine gears up for the 2016 presidential campaign. Yes, I know the election itself is not for another 18 months or so, but the pollsters, strategy architects, and political pundits have to justify their existence somehow.
So far, the race is shaping up to be some Republican against Democrat Hillary Clinton, a polarizing figure even to many in her own party. Not that any of the GOP candidates so far are great unifiers.
Entered into the fray thus far for the Republicans: Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, who is categorized as pro-life, anti-same-sex marriage (leaving it to the states to decide), anti-gun control, against the Affordable Care Act, anti-IRS, pro-Israel, and anti-net neutrality. Cruz is also widely seen as one of the main forces behind the 2013 government shutdown, in large part because of his efforts to include de-funding and removal of the authorization for the Affordable Care Act in any stop-gap funding measure. He also support abolition of the IRS and believes in climate change, though not in the role of humanity in global warming.
We also have Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, a pseudo-libertarian who nonetheless wants to restrict a woman's right to an abortion (something of an oxymoron there, someone who wants to reduce the influence and reach of government yet wants to increase it, at least in this area). He has also proposed gutting the Department of Education and eliminating the Department of Housing and Urban Development, played a leading role in blocking a treaty with Switzerland that would have allowed the IRS to conduct tax evasion probes, and been accused on a number of occasions of plagiarizing speech and article material from other sources. Like Cruz, he is opposed to gay marriage but would leave the issue to individual states to decide, and he is against all forms of gun control.
Then we have Senator Marco Rubio of Florida. Like Cruz and Paul, he is pro-life. He also supports raising the age for Social Security benefits eligibility and opposes same-sex marriage, suggesting (like Cruz and Paul) that it be left to individual states to decide. He supports extension of the Bush tax cuts as well as elimination of both capital gains taxes and the estate tax. Unlike the other two announced GOP candidates, Rubio held elected office prior to becoming a U.S. Senator, serving nine years in the Florida House of Representatives.
These are the three GOP candidates announced so far. They have one thing in common aside from many of their political views - they are all considered Tea Party activists. Both Cruz and Rubio are under age 45.
Other likely and potential Republican candidates include retired surgeon Ben Carson (expected to announce May 4), largely identified as a conservative who opposes same-sex marriage and does not believe in evolution but who at one time stated that for-profit insurance companies should be eliminated and has said that semi-automatic weapons should be better regulated in large cities and high-crime areas.
The GOP field could become even more crowded if former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, current New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorino, U.S. Senator Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker decide to run.
Then there are the usual Republican suspects, who have run before and could decide to run again: former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, former Texas Governor Rick Perry, former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, and business magnate Donald Trump of New York.
So far, the circus is primarily restricted to the GOP, as the Democrats have only one announced serious candidate to date: former Secretary of State, U.S. Senator, and First Lady Hillary Clinton. Unlike her GOP counterparts, who appear to have always been politically conservative, Clinton was not always a liberal. She campaigned for Barry Goldwater in 1964 and was president of the Young Republicans for a time while a student at Wellesley College. At the time, she was a moderate Republican but left the GOP after the 1968 national convention.
Clinton has supported repeal of the Bush tax cuts (announced as temporary when first enacted), release of oil reserves, exploration into alternative energy sources, including hydrogen-powered vehicles (along with tepid support for nuclear power), campaign finance reform, and a retention of the Social Security tax cap (unlike many of her fellow Democrats), and health care reform somewhat similar to the Affordable Care Act.
She has also faced criticism for her role as an advisor to her husband while he was president (perhaps an argument by some that a First Lady, much like a child, should be seen and not heard) and for sitting on the Board of Directors of Wal-Mart. Unlike her GOP challengers, Clinton is identified as pro-choice. While initially opposed to same-sex marriage (but in favor of civil unions), Clinton appears to have changed her view over time. She also supports net neutrality.
I'm not going to get into the entire Benghazi thing as that has been beaten to death by so many others and will no doubt come up again during any presidential campaign.
It is still possible that Clinton could face challengers for Democratic nomination. Former Rhode Island Governor (and Republican U.S. Senator) Lincoln Chafee, former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley, and former U.S. Senator (and former U.S. Navy Secretary) Jim Webb of Virginia (another former Republican) are all said to be exploring a possible run.
Other possible candidates who have expressed interest or who have been speculated about include: current Vice President Joe Biden, Senator Bernie Sanders (who runs as an independent), former Vice President Al Gore, former Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, current Delaware Governor Jack Markell, and current U.S. Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut.
All in all, it promises to be another overwrought, over-analyzed, over-advertised, overreaching, over-attacking, over-criticizing campaign, generally lacking in substance from either the candidates or those who report on them. In the end, the nominations and ultimately the general election itself will likely be decided by which candidate wins the most favor with the Super PACs and garners the most money in campaign contributions from said shadowy political organizations. This truism is perhaps never more true than when it comes to political campaigns; "money talks."
Step right up folks! See the amazing tap dancing presidential candidates. Watch in wonder as they spout platitudes and verbally slam one another with half-baked innuendo and overwrought criticism.
Yes, the political circus is back in towns all across America as the political machine gears up for the 2016 presidential campaign. Yes, I know the election itself is not for another 18 months or so, but the pollsters, strategy architects, and political pundits have to justify their existence somehow.
So far, the race is shaping up to be some Republican against Democrat Hillary Clinton, a polarizing figure even to many in her own party. Not that any of the GOP candidates so far are great unifiers.
Entered into the fray thus far for the Republicans: Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, who is categorized as pro-life, anti-same-sex marriage (leaving it to the states to decide), anti-gun control, against the Affordable Care Act, anti-IRS, pro-Israel, and anti-net neutrality. Cruz is also widely seen as one of the main forces behind the 2013 government shutdown, in large part because of his efforts to include de-funding and removal of the authorization for the Affordable Care Act in any stop-gap funding measure. He also support abolition of the IRS and believes in climate change, though not in the role of humanity in global warming.
We also have Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, a pseudo-libertarian who nonetheless wants to restrict a woman's right to an abortion (something of an oxymoron there, someone who wants to reduce the influence and reach of government yet wants to increase it, at least in this area). He has also proposed gutting the Department of Education and eliminating the Department of Housing and Urban Development, played a leading role in blocking a treaty with Switzerland that would have allowed the IRS to conduct tax evasion probes, and been accused on a number of occasions of plagiarizing speech and article material from other sources. Like Cruz, he is opposed to gay marriage but would leave the issue to individual states to decide, and he is against all forms of gun control.
Then we have Senator Marco Rubio of Florida. Like Cruz and Paul, he is pro-life. He also supports raising the age for Social Security benefits eligibility and opposes same-sex marriage, suggesting (like Cruz and Paul) that it be left to individual states to decide. He supports extension of the Bush tax cuts as well as elimination of both capital gains taxes and the estate tax. Unlike the other two announced GOP candidates, Rubio held elected office prior to becoming a U.S. Senator, serving nine years in the Florida House of Representatives.
These are the three GOP candidates announced so far. They have one thing in common aside from many of their political views - they are all considered Tea Party activists. Both Cruz and Rubio are under age 45.
Other likely and potential Republican candidates include retired surgeon Ben Carson (expected to announce May 4), largely identified as a conservative who opposes same-sex marriage and does not believe in evolution but who at one time stated that for-profit insurance companies should be eliminated and has said that semi-automatic weapons should be better regulated in large cities and high-crime areas.
The GOP field could become even more crowded if former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, current New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorino, U.S. Senator Lindsay Graham of South Carolina, Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, and Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker decide to run.
Then there are the usual Republican suspects, who have run before and could decide to run again: former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee, former Texas Governor Rick Perry, former Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, and business magnate Donald Trump of New York.
So far, the circus is primarily restricted to the GOP, as the Democrats have only one announced serious candidate to date: former Secretary of State, U.S. Senator, and First Lady Hillary Clinton. Unlike her GOP counterparts, who appear to have always been politically conservative, Clinton was not always a liberal. She campaigned for Barry Goldwater in 1964 and was president of the Young Republicans for a time while a student at Wellesley College. At the time, she was a moderate Republican but left the GOP after the 1968 national convention.
Clinton has supported repeal of the Bush tax cuts (announced as temporary when first enacted), release of oil reserves, exploration into alternative energy sources, including hydrogen-powered vehicles (along with tepid support for nuclear power), campaign finance reform, and a retention of the Social Security tax cap (unlike many of her fellow Democrats), and health care reform somewhat similar to the Affordable Care Act.
She has also faced criticism for her role as an advisor to her husband while he was president (perhaps an argument by some that a First Lady, much like a child, should be seen and not heard) and for sitting on the Board of Directors of Wal-Mart. Unlike her GOP challengers, Clinton is identified as pro-choice. While initially opposed to same-sex marriage (but in favor of civil unions), Clinton appears to have changed her view over time. She also supports net neutrality.
I'm not going to get into the entire Benghazi thing as that has been beaten to death by so many others and will no doubt come up again during any presidential campaign.
It is still possible that Clinton could face challengers for Democratic nomination. Former Rhode Island Governor (and Republican U.S. Senator) Lincoln Chafee, former Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley, and former U.S. Senator (and former U.S. Navy Secretary) Jim Webb of Virginia (another former Republican) are all said to be exploring a possible run.
Other possible candidates who have expressed interest or who have been speculated about include: current Vice President Joe Biden, Senator Bernie Sanders (who runs as an independent), former Vice President Al Gore, former Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, current Delaware Governor Jack Markell, and current U.S. Senator Chris Murphy of Connecticut.
All in all, it promises to be another overwrought, over-analyzed, over-advertised, overreaching, over-attacking, over-criticizing campaign, generally lacking in substance from either the candidates or those who report on them. In the end, the nominations and ultimately the general election itself will likely be decided by which candidate wins the most favor with the Super PACs and garners the most money in campaign contributions from said shadowy political organizations. This truism is perhaps never more true than when it comes to political campaigns; "money talks."
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Random Thoughts
My apologies for not having posted in the last few weeks. Allergies have been kicking my butt, not to mention the demands and needs of everyday life as well as the need and desire to get out camping again. Now on to some capsule thoughts.
Half a solution better than none? The Democrats' rules committee has decided how Florida and Michigan should be resolved: seat all of the delegates and give each one half a vote. How's that for half a solution? Hillary wins a moral victory, and Barack keeps most of his lead in delegates. Personally, I think the party should have stuck to its guns and kept the delegations out for breaking the rules. There were ways for moving up the primaries according to the rules, and neither state used them.
Obama leaves church. Barack Obama has decided to leave the church he has called his spiritual home for the past 20 years. Having left a church or two in my time, I know how hard a decision this can be. I also thought he made the right decision in choosing to leave while also showing his integrity and loyalty by resisting the earlier calls for him to leave.
To pod or not to pod. I've been reading a lot of late about podcasting and debating whether to try my hand at it. I'm intrigued by it, and it seems a way to get back to broadcasting of a sort, a field I worked in for a time many moons ago. The questions for me are: what type of podcast to do (I have several ideas), where to host it (also several ideas), and do I have the discipline and the passion to do this? For me, that is probably the biggest question.
My problem is that I am interested in a great many things, but I tend to drift from interest to interest, never staying focused for any length of time. That was part of the reason for the name of this blog; I thought I would be roaming from subject to subject more than I have thus far. Perhaps once the election is over.
One last random thought: if you are a father, as I am, a Happy Father's Day on June 15. If you have a father, pay him a visit. If your father is deceased, remember the good things about him. None of us is perfect, and most of us try to do the best we can whenever we can.
Half a solution better than none? The Democrats' rules committee has decided how Florida and Michigan should be resolved: seat all of the delegates and give each one half a vote. How's that for half a solution? Hillary wins a moral victory, and Barack keeps most of his lead in delegates. Personally, I think the party should have stuck to its guns and kept the delegations out for breaking the rules. There were ways for moving up the primaries according to the rules, and neither state used them.
Obama leaves church. Barack Obama has decided to leave the church he has called his spiritual home for the past 20 years. Having left a church or two in my time, I know how hard a decision this can be. I also thought he made the right decision in choosing to leave while also showing his integrity and loyalty by resisting the earlier calls for him to leave.
To pod or not to pod. I've been reading a lot of late about podcasting and debating whether to try my hand at it. I'm intrigued by it, and it seems a way to get back to broadcasting of a sort, a field I worked in for a time many moons ago. The questions for me are: what type of podcast to do (I have several ideas), where to host it (also several ideas), and do I have the discipline and the passion to do this? For me, that is probably the biggest question.
My problem is that I am interested in a great many things, but I tend to drift from interest to interest, never staying focused for any length of time. That was part of the reason for the name of this blog; I thought I would be roaming from subject to subject more than I have thus far. Perhaps once the election is over.
One last random thought: if you are a father, as I am, a Happy Father's Day on June 15. If you have a father, pay him a visit. If your father is deceased, remember the good things about him. None of us is perfect, and most of us try to do the best we can whenever we can.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Edwards Speaks, Will Anyone Listen?
Former Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards has finally come down off the fence. (It must have hurt sitting up there for so long. I hope there weren't too many splinters.) Edwards today did what many thought he would do if he ever decided to endorse a candidate. He announced his support for Barack Obama.
Several weeks ago, such an endorsement probably would have meant something. Now, though, who know whether it really means anything at all. It almost smacks of posturing and has me at least wondering, John, why did it take you so long? I can't be the only one wondering.
John, could you not see that Barack Obama's campaign offers at least the hope of change while Hillary Clinton's campaign smells like more of the same smoke-filled, backroom deals that have given politics a bad name? It seems to me the choice would have been an easy one to make. Or was it simply the desire to be or at least feel like a kingmaker that created the delay? Who knows?
What does seem clear is that, at this late stage of the campaign, John Edwards' annointing of Barack Obama as the best choice and hope for the Democratic Party in 2008 will likely have little effect on the vote in the remaining primaries. Where it could and should have an impact is in terms of Democratic super delegates and their decisions of whom to support. The trickle of super delegates moving to Obama has turned into a steady stream and could soon become a flood.
With the weight of such a party power as John Edwards now behind Obama, the rest of the party leadership should have less trouble now telling Hillary Clinton it's time to call her driver and have him take her home.
Several weeks ago, such an endorsement probably would have meant something. Now, though, who know whether it really means anything at all. It almost smacks of posturing and has me at least wondering, John, why did it take you so long? I can't be the only one wondering.
John, could you not see that Barack Obama's campaign offers at least the hope of change while Hillary Clinton's campaign smells like more of the same smoke-filled, backroom deals that have given politics a bad name? It seems to me the choice would have been an easy one to make. Or was it simply the desire to be or at least feel like a kingmaker that created the delay? Who knows?
What does seem clear is that, at this late stage of the campaign, John Edwards' annointing of Barack Obama as the best choice and hope for the Democratic Party in 2008 will likely have little effect on the vote in the remaining primaries. Where it could and should have an impact is in terms of Democratic super delegates and their decisions of whom to support. The trickle of super delegates moving to Obama has turned into a steady stream and could soon become a flood.
With the weight of such a party power as John Edwards now behind Obama, the rest of the party leadership should have less trouble now telling Hillary Clinton it's time to call her driver and have him take her home.
Monday, May 5, 2008
The Democratic Divide
Tomorrow is primary election day in Indiana and North Carolina. A number of the pundits forecast a split, with Hillary Clinton winning Indiana and Barack Obama taking North Carolina. Me, I hope against hope for an Obama sweep.
There are a couple of reasons for this. First, I am an Obama supporter and have been since the number of candidates dwindled to two (perhaps even before that). Second, regardless of the bright face the Democratic Party leadership paints on this drawn-out race, the increasingly bitter contest between Clinton and Obama is anything but good for the party. It is great fodder for conservative talk radio and the mainstream media, but as far as adding anything of substance to the political canvas, this battle has all the appeal of an episode of Jerry Springer.
The party says this battle has brought new voters into the process and has reinvigorated the political process. They are right - to a point. And that point has been passed. As this race becomes increasingly bitter, increasingly nasty, those same new and excited voters are in danger of becoming disgusted and appalled at the notion that a candidate of ideals and a candidate of change, as many have perceived Barack Obama to be, cannot succeed against a political machine that attempts to appeal to the lowest common denominator and it willing to use any tactic, any trick to win and, if necessary, steal the nomination.
Where Barack Obama has shown himself to be a man of ideals, loyal to the party rules but willing to say the unpopular thing because it needs to be said, Hillary Clinton has shown herself to be an opportunist, loyal only to herself and willing to say whatever she thinks will attract votes. Millions of Americans have already seen through this and have given Obama a lead in pledged delegates. Hopefully, a majority of voters in both Indiana and North Carolina will do likewise on Tuesday and send the message to Hillary Clinton that it is time for her to end her campaign - while the Democrats can still win the White House.
There are a couple of reasons for this. First, I am an Obama supporter and have been since the number of candidates dwindled to two (perhaps even before that). Second, regardless of the bright face the Democratic Party leadership paints on this drawn-out race, the increasingly bitter contest between Clinton and Obama is anything but good for the party. It is great fodder for conservative talk radio and the mainstream media, but as far as adding anything of substance to the political canvas, this battle has all the appeal of an episode of Jerry Springer.
The party says this battle has brought new voters into the process and has reinvigorated the political process. They are right - to a point. And that point has been passed. As this race becomes increasingly bitter, increasingly nasty, those same new and excited voters are in danger of becoming disgusted and appalled at the notion that a candidate of ideals and a candidate of change, as many have perceived Barack Obama to be, cannot succeed against a political machine that attempts to appeal to the lowest common denominator and it willing to use any tactic, any trick to win and, if necessary, steal the nomination.
Where Barack Obama has shown himself to be a man of ideals, loyal to the party rules but willing to say the unpopular thing because it needs to be said, Hillary Clinton has shown herself to be an opportunist, loyal only to herself and willing to say whatever she thinks will attract votes. Millions of Americans have already seen through this and have given Obama a lead in pledged delegates. Hopefully, a majority of voters in both Indiana and North Carolina will do likewise on Tuesday and send the message to Hillary Clinton that it is time for her to end her campaign - while the Democrats can still win the White House.
Monday, April 21, 2008
Will Barack finally win "a big state"?
In a few hours, the polls will open and voting in the Pennsylvania Democratic Presidential primary will be underway. Barack Obama will hope to pull the upset and deliver the knockout punch that at long last brings the candidacy of Hillary Clinton to a merciful end.
Hopefully, after this primary, Hillary will display a level of class she has thus far not shown and drop out of the race. If she really cares, as she says, about ensuring that a Democrat is back in the White House, this is what she will do. Don't bet on it.
Clinton says she wants everyone to have a chance to have their voices heard in this process. To which I say, what a crock! If the tables were turned and Barack Obama were behind in the popular vote and the delegate count, Hillary Clinton would be leading the pack in calling for Obama to get out of the race because he was hurting the party. She certainly wouldn't be concerned that some people did not have the chance to have their say. Besides, they can have their say in November when their say will carry even more weight.
If, as a few brave souls have predicted, Obama does actually win in Pennsylvania, Hillary Clinton should graciously leave the race and make good on her oft-repeated pledge to do everything in her power to help elect the Democratic nominee. If grace and class do not dictate her actions, perhaps a well placed smack upside the head would work. It always worked with me.
Hopefully, after this primary, Hillary will display a level of class she has thus far not shown and drop out of the race. If she really cares, as she says, about ensuring that a Democrat is back in the White House, this is what she will do. Don't bet on it.
Clinton says she wants everyone to have a chance to have their voices heard in this process. To which I say, what a crock! If the tables were turned and Barack Obama were behind in the popular vote and the delegate count, Hillary Clinton would be leading the pack in calling for Obama to get out of the race because he was hurting the party. She certainly wouldn't be concerned that some people did not have the chance to have their say. Besides, they can have their say in November when their say will carry even more weight.
If, as a few brave souls have predicted, Obama does actually win in Pennsylvania, Hillary Clinton should graciously leave the race and make good on her oft-repeated pledge to do everything in her power to help elect the Democratic nominee. If grace and class do not dictate her actions, perhaps a well placed smack upside the head would work. It always worked with me.
Tuesday, March 25, 2008
So much to say, so much to say, so much to say
First off, apologies to Dave Matthews for borrowing a line from one of his songs for the title of this entry. Also, apologies to anyone whi may have read this blog and waited for the next entry.
Life has kind of taken precedence. And, there is just so much out there worth discussing, I couldn't decide. It was like being a kid in a toy store who is told he can get anything he wants. What to choose?
I have also been wrestling with a decision regarding the coming November election: how I would vote or even if I would vote. Right now, it depends.
If Barack Obama is able to secure the Democratic nomination for President, then he will get my vote. Despite every underhanded tactic tried by the Clinton mob, Obama has maintained his dignity and his poise and his cool. Quite frankly, those are all qualities we need in our next President. Hillary Clinton possesses none of those characteristics.
Thinking about it as I write this, Hillary Clinton reminds me a little of Richard Nixon. She appears willing to do anything to gain an advantage, even lie, cheat, or steal if necessary. She has changed her stand on so many issues during this campaign. I didn't think any one person could talk from so many different sides of their mouth.
First, she lobbied the super delegates to support her even though she was losing in the regular delegate count. Then, when many of those super delegates came out for Obama, she argued that they should not go against the will of the people. I honestly don't think she gives a damn about the will of any people except for herself and a few moneyed supporters.
The other day, in time to be sacreligious for Easter, key Clinton enforcer James Carville came out and likened former Clinton cabinet member Bill Richardson to Judas because he had the audacity to publicly support Obama. The suggestion is that Richardson will get his "30 pieces of silver" should Obama win the nomination. Even if that is true, how how is it any different from whatever Clinton is promising to those super delegates who publicly endorse her?
It is increasingly clear that Hillary Clinton, deep down, cares for no one other than Hillary Clinton. She has no interest in the Democrats winning back the White House. She is only interested in Hillary Clinton winning the White House. If she can't get the nomination, she is determined to make sure Obama doesn't win in November. Hillary Clinton's loyalties are to the Clinton political machine first and foremost. The Democratic party and America itself come in a distant second and third (or maybe third and fourth behind her richest supporters).
Earlier in the campaign, I was prepared to cast a reluctant vote for Hillary Clinton in order to prevent a continuation of the disastrous Bush policies. Now, though I am a loyal and lifelong Democrat, I can no more vote for Hillary Clinton than I can for John McCain. So I won't. She's an opportunist who calls herself a Democrat. If she loses the nomination, I would not be surprised to see her launch an independent campaign.
Hillary Clinton ought to be booted out of the Democratic Party for her and her husband's suggestions that of the three Presidential candidates remaining, only two of them are honorable and loyal Americans, and neither of them are named Barack Obama.
Well, she got part of it right. There are only two honorable and loyal Americans still in the race for President. But she's not one of them.
Life has kind of taken precedence. And, there is just so much out there worth discussing, I couldn't decide. It was like being a kid in a toy store who is told he can get anything he wants. What to choose?
I have also been wrestling with a decision regarding the coming November election: how I would vote or even if I would vote. Right now, it depends.
If Barack Obama is able to secure the Democratic nomination for President, then he will get my vote. Despite every underhanded tactic tried by the Clinton mob, Obama has maintained his dignity and his poise and his cool. Quite frankly, those are all qualities we need in our next President. Hillary Clinton possesses none of those characteristics.
Thinking about it as I write this, Hillary Clinton reminds me a little of Richard Nixon. She appears willing to do anything to gain an advantage, even lie, cheat, or steal if necessary. She has changed her stand on so many issues during this campaign. I didn't think any one person could talk from so many different sides of their mouth.
First, she lobbied the super delegates to support her even though she was losing in the regular delegate count. Then, when many of those super delegates came out for Obama, she argued that they should not go against the will of the people. I honestly don't think she gives a damn about the will of any people except for herself and a few moneyed supporters.
The other day, in time to be sacreligious for Easter, key Clinton enforcer James Carville came out and likened former Clinton cabinet member Bill Richardson to Judas because he had the audacity to publicly support Obama. The suggestion is that Richardson will get his "30 pieces of silver" should Obama win the nomination. Even if that is true, how how is it any different from whatever Clinton is promising to those super delegates who publicly endorse her?
It is increasingly clear that Hillary Clinton, deep down, cares for no one other than Hillary Clinton. She has no interest in the Democrats winning back the White House. She is only interested in Hillary Clinton winning the White House. If she can't get the nomination, she is determined to make sure Obama doesn't win in November. Hillary Clinton's loyalties are to the Clinton political machine first and foremost. The Democratic party and America itself come in a distant second and third (or maybe third and fourth behind her richest supporters).
Earlier in the campaign, I was prepared to cast a reluctant vote for Hillary Clinton in order to prevent a continuation of the disastrous Bush policies. Now, though I am a loyal and lifelong Democrat, I can no more vote for Hillary Clinton than I can for John McCain. So I won't. She's an opportunist who calls herself a Democrat. If she loses the nomination, I would not be surprised to see her launch an independent campaign.
Hillary Clinton ought to be booted out of the Democratic Party for her and her husband's suggestions that of the three Presidential candidates remaining, only two of them are honorable and loyal Americans, and neither of them are named Barack Obama.
Well, she got part of it right. There are only two honorable and loyal Americans still in the race for President. But she's not one of them.
Friday, February 22, 2008
Please deposit 50-cents for three more minutes
If you are like me (and let's face it, who is?), you spent a portion of your Thursday evening watching the CNN-Univision Democratic debate featuring Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. I suspect, though, that most of you watching that debate paid little, if any, attention to the headlines scrolling across the bottom of your television screen. But I did.
And one of the tidbits that caught my attention was the one-line announcement that Southern Methodist University has been chosen as the future home for the George W. Bush Presidential Library. My first thought was what the heck are they going to put into it, a couple of comics and a Dick and Jane book? Then I thought, well they could put in all of the documents this administration never shared with the American people, such as the minutes from the closed-door meetings Dick Cheney had with representatives of the big energy companies or the details of the sweetheart deal that was given to Halliburton when America invaded Iraq. All heavily edited, of course.
It also occurred to me to wonder what Southern Methodist gets out of all of this. Then it hit me. The University must have a vacant and unused phone booth somewhere on campus and decided that, rather than remove it, why not make a few extra bucks from it? Maybe the University will even fix the phone.
If the library goes ahead, I think I can suggest the perfect design. First, it should somewhat resemble an inverted pyramid. This is to symbolize the concentration of wealth and tax breaks at the top that has occurred during the Bush years. Next, all the doors should only be on the right to signify Bush's conservative leanings.
There should be no windows, only stone walls to illustrate the lack of openness and honesty in this administration. Finally, all the hallways should lead to nowhere but a dead end in order to represent the policies and actions that have left America stuck in many respects in a corner or between a rock and a hard place.
Oh, it goes without saying that entire project should experience a 100-percent cost overrun in honor of the multi-trillion dollar debt incurred since Bush took office. I'm out of quarters, so that will do it for this call.
And one of the tidbits that caught my attention was the one-line announcement that Southern Methodist University has been chosen as the future home for the George W. Bush Presidential Library. My first thought was what the heck are they going to put into it, a couple of comics and a Dick and Jane book? Then I thought, well they could put in all of the documents this administration never shared with the American people, such as the minutes from the closed-door meetings Dick Cheney had with representatives of the big energy companies or the details of the sweetheart deal that was given to Halliburton when America invaded Iraq. All heavily edited, of course.
It also occurred to me to wonder what Southern Methodist gets out of all of this. Then it hit me. The University must have a vacant and unused phone booth somewhere on campus and decided that, rather than remove it, why not make a few extra bucks from it? Maybe the University will even fix the phone.
If the library goes ahead, I think I can suggest the perfect design. First, it should somewhat resemble an inverted pyramid. This is to symbolize the concentration of wealth and tax breaks at the top that has occurred during the Bush years. Next, all the doors should only be on the right to signify Bush's conservative leanings.
There should be no windows, only stone walls to illustrate the lack of openness and honesty in this administration. Finally, all the hallways should lead to nowhere but a dead end in order to represent the policies and actions that have left America stuck in many respects in a corner or between a rock and a hard place.
Oh, it goes without saying that entire project should experience a 100-percent cost overrun in honor of the multi-trillion dollar debt incurred since Bush took office. I'm out of quarters, so that will do it for this call.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)