Category: politics

Ross's new post about McCain and Obama

Posted on by Daniel J. McKeown

Recently I invited my friend Ross to write for the sf3am.com/citynews blog, which is one of the sites that I manage and write for. I extended this invitation based on my respect for his independent thinking and skill at writing.

And I haven’t been disappointed. Here’s the first paragraph from his first post:

“From my admittedly modest knowledge of American history, I’m pretty sure of one thing: If Thomas Jefferson had been alive and in attendance at Tuesday’s debate, the first thing he would have done is walk up on stage and punch both candidates in the mouth.”

Anyone who references Thomas Jefferson is going to get my attention, and Ross uses that as a humorous starting point to make a serious point about the two-party duopoly not serving the interests of the American people. I recommend that you read the whole post.

However, I have to say that I don’t agree with Ross on everything that he says. As a Ralph Nader voter in 2000, I understand and respect the decision of any American to support candidates outside the political mainstream–and just as Ross argues that Ron Paul saw much of today’s economic disaster coming years ago, I certainly think that Nader’s rants against unchecked corporate greed should have been listened to back in 2000.

But this year I am supporting Barack Obama. I believe that Obama is sincere when he promises change to the American people, and I have enormous respect for his courageous opposition to the Iraq war which I have long bitterly opposed. And maybe it just comes down to my Chicago-area roots (I grew up in Cook County, Illinois). How could any real Chicagoan vote for McCain after his moronic attacks on the city by the lake?

Anyway, I just wanted to explain that I am proud to give Ross a forum for his views on my site because he is intelligent, well-informed, and well-educated. Having someone like that write on my site is a greater asset to my readers, in my opinion, than offering just another bland voice toeing the traditional liberal line. My policy is to offer anyone like that total editorial independence, and I hope to see many new posts from Ross.

Wow, Chelsea – you're just another Clinton liar and fantasist

Posted on by Daniel J. McKeown

Philgarlic--flickr--2264139774_8bd8fb80cd

[photo: Philgarlic]

Pushed further and further into the spotlight as her mother’s campaign has fallen behind to the relentless and now unstoppable Barack Obama, Chelsea Clinton is acquitting herself rather poorly as a public personality.

Clearly the young Clinton’s speaking voice has much more of her mother’s shrill, graceless yammer than her father’s smooth hillbilly drawl.  But there are deeper problems with her recent appearances than just an annoying tone.  What has really catapulted Chelsea’s attempted rallies into the media spotlight is her petulant sense of entitlement and insistence on campaigning within her own warped sense of context.

Consider her response when asked at Butler University about whether the Monica Lewinsky scandal had damaged Hillary Clinton’s reputation:

‘"Wow, you’re the first person actually that’s ever asked me that question in the, I don’t know maybe, 70 college campuses I’ve now been to, and I do not think that is any of your business."’

What Chelsea must be forgetting is that her father lied to the American people about the issue–that press conference was his chance to use the "none of your business" line, but Bill Clinton let that particular horse out of the barn by addressing the issue with an angry misleading insistence–and that many Americans suspect that the preservation of the Clintons’ marriage was a calculated, Faustian bargain made in the interests of greater money and power for the both of them.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign has already planted questioners at campaign events in Iowa, but the recent revelations about her lies about her 1996 Bosnia trip are an even clearer exposition of her fundamental dishonesty and emphasis on political expediency over the unambiguous truth–and there’s Chelsea Clinton, backing up the falsehoods from her own supposed recollection:

"I support what she said."

Until recently the Clinton campaign has been able to shelter their fledgling apprentice liar:

‘She has largely operated under the radar, speaking frequently to the kind of young audiences that often favour Mrs Clinton’s rival Barack Obama but never granting interviews and being protected by campaign aides who swoop on any reporter who has the temerity to attempt to ask a question.

Events are usually arranged at short notice and only publicised locally. In some cases it is specified that only students are allowed to attend.’

They can try to ensure that her gaffes are aired in front of limited audiences, but Chelsea Clinton has clearly made herself a public figure and the idea that she has some protected status that places her "business" beyond scrutiny is nothing more than moronic fantasy, no doubt nurtured by her arrogant parents and her fear of facing the truth about them.

Good news: a warmonger fascist hates Obama

Posted on by Daniel J. McKeown

In a book review, Pankaj Mishra recounts the hubris and idiocy of Woodrow Wilson and his quest to make the world “safe for democracy.” In this telling, we are informed that writers for the New Republic magazine were among his most prominent and important backers. Moving ahead to the 21st century, we are reminded in the review that the same magazine backed the fascist aggression against Iraq led by George W. Bush.

Writing for the New Republic today, and carrying on a moronic tradition, is Mr. Leon Wieseltier, the magazine’s literary editor and spinner of clever phrases.

It’s bad enough that not long ago Wieseltier was mentioned in this [sock-puppeted] boast from discredited blogger and proven liar Lee Siegel: “They hate him because they want to write like him but can’t. Maybe if they’d let themselves go and write truthfully, they’d get Leon Wieseltier to notice them too.”

Employing that scumbag was bad enough, and brings up real questions about his judgement. But Wieseltier’s recent rants about Barack Obama should bring even greater pause. Mr. Obama, we are told, is simply too young mentally, too naive, a child selling “euphoria.”

Apparently since he doesn’t favor war-mongering in his speeches, and phrases that Wieseltier enjoys like “Islamistan,” Obama does not possess, in Wieseltier’s own words, “the hardness I seek.” (What man does? He won’t say.)

But I will close by simply quoting what amounts to the key point of the article, which brings up the question in my mind of whether war-mongering is a side dish here and the main plate, just as in Wilson’s day, is racism:

“There is almost no more commonplace trait of human existence (and of African American existence) than false hopes.”

This is vile language, nothing more than a call for a return to the divisions of the past and a plea for fear of the future.

[Barack Obama for President 2008!! To find why I support Barack Obama, check out pacificpelican.us podcasts 16, 18 and 19, and this article on sf3am.com/citynews.]