Tag: 2008 elections

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.

Ohio is key to electing Barack Obama

Posted on by Daniel J. McKeown

Todd Beeton of mydd.com makes an excellent point about the current state of the presidential race between Barack Obama and John McCain:

“In the wake of the emergence of Sarah Palin, one thing becomes clear: we are reverting to an electoral map far closer to that of 2004 than many anticipated a few months ago.”

Read the whole post, it goes on to make plenty of good points. But the key in all of them: that Ohio is now as crucial as ever in the electoral map.

As an Ohio resident, I look forward to voting for Barack Obama, and I can say that is the most common sentiment in the Cleveland area. But beyond that, I think that the economic situation in Ohio and the lousy effects of NAFTA on the state are going to motivate Ohioans from farm to city and from suburb to exurb to vote for Obama, the candidate with much more clear and practical ideas on what to do on the economy and the less likely to give in to disadvantageous trade agreements that will continue to hollow out the industrial base even during a commodities boom.

If the race really is going to come down to issues like the economy and international issues and Obama is able to articulate his views on those matters at the debates (a big if given the quality of debates so far this year) he may be able to open up a wider electoral map again in his advantage anyway, contesting states like Colorado, Virginia and Montana, especially when voters are alerted to the fact that John McCain’s views may be couched in stirring rhetoric but substantively represent a continuation of the clownish antics of George W. Bush’s administration, which some 70% of America has tired of.

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.]

John Edwards's lackluster reply–from a January letter

Posted on by Daniel J. McKeown

I just received a response in the mail from John Edwards, who apparently signs his signature with a big black marker, about a January letter.

All that time for his staff to think about it didn’t really seem to help, in terms of addressing my actual concerns.  I mentioned the letter previously in an endorsement of Barack Obama [bookmarks],and it certainly wasn’t focused on Iraq [bookmarks,category] as the reply from the Edwards camp acted like.  In fact, in the letter that I wrote I was deriding the renewed bellicosity of John Edwards toward Iran [bookmarks,article] and arguing for less military adventures overseas.

This excerpt from the Edwards form letter I received just about sums up why he is not listening:

‘After withdrawal, we should keep sufficient forces in the region to contain the conflict and ensure that instability in Iraq does not spill over into other countries.’

First of all, the whole point of “withdrawal” is to get out.  “After withdrawal,” maybe it will be time to run our own country and leave this kind of violent aggression in the past?

Second of all, the whole point of the Iraq invasion according to some versions of the neoconservative master plan was that the “creative destruction” of Iraqi democracy would spread to the sullen dictatorships in the area and create a popular movement for change.  Instead it has uncorked the kind of madness that makes those stodgy old regimes look like a less bad solution than previously–including to their own people.  Indeed, governments in Syria and Jordan prize nothing higher than stability, and are worried about the American-caused instability spilling over onto their regimes.

Is it that Edwards and his campaign team just don’t get that, and are just stumbling along believing that something can be salvaged from the failed wars of the Bush administration [bookmarks]?  Or are they forgetting the lessons of Iraq and falling back into the war-loving, war-profiteering consensus that exists among most powerful members of the major political parties and the major media, popular will be damned?

I respect John Edwards and his wife and despise the nasty insults that vile popular conservative commentators have lobbed at them.  But Mr. Edwards certainly peaked politically four years ago and times have changed; it’s time to time to back Obama (unless he gets any squishier about Iraq, Iran and the so-called war on terror) against Hillary in the 2008 Democratic presidential primaries and election [bookmarks].

How dangerous is Hillary Clinton?

Posted on by Daniel J. McKeown

Hillary Clinton photo by Reuters, March 2007

Hillary Clinton might be the opponent that many conservatives claim they want to face in the general elections–but that might be true for reasons that are somewhat surprising.

Those clumsy “folks,” as he probably calls them, at the RNC–you know, what remains of the political operation of George W. Bush, that guy whose approoval is less than 30%, that guy who never got any immigration “reform” bill or Social Security Bill or–remember the Orwellian [arghh, so much Orwellian stuff from these clowns–Clear Skies and all that] “ownership society” buzzword from the 2004 campaign? You get the idea. Those people seem to fairly salivate at the idea of Republican candidate taking on Hillary.

But why should anyone listen to the spin from Bush’s people? Bush is finished politically and he was so busy with “war on my mind” that he has practically no major accomplishments to point to. I think there might be some lonely, arid days out at Crawford after the power is gone. (He did get to sign off on quite a few tax cuts though–for his “base” he is actually a great president, and always will be.)

And will Bush ever travel internationally after his term ends (assuming he doesn’t start adding lifetime rule to his other lawless assertions of executive power–Congress has done so little to check him so far, maybe they would accept that as well) when he will probably be indicted by the International Criminal Court as a war criminal?

Is that a bit too far? Well, no. For the great crime–invading Iraq based on falsehoods, the false charges about the WMD, the violation of Iraqi sovereignty–the UN would have to enforce its charter. As it is, the UN seems more interested in legitimizing the brutal, imperial occupation. So for the great crime Bush will likely not be indicted. But for some of the small crimes committed in ICC signatory nations, Bush could easily be held responsible. This would include the CIA “black sites” secret prisons in Poland and Romania (for which I would seriously recommend debate in the European Parliament and the EC for both of their expulsion from the EU superstate, by the way) and the illegal kidnapping of an Islamic cleric in Italy, for which several American agents face trial in absentia in Italy.

So back to Hillary and why the Bush administration types like the idea of running against her. They love the idea of demonizing her the way they and the media did with Howard Dean and Tom Daschle (and by that I mean inflating both of those mediocrities to be leviathons of liberalism). Check out this old Sean Hannity interview with Dick Cheney from June 2005:

‘HANNITY: Not just Howard Dean. I mean, Harry Reid, in front of school children, called the president of the United States of American a loser. Hillary Clinton said there’s never been in the history of this country an administration I believe more intent upon consolidating and abusing power. What is going on in your mind, I mean, as you hear those this? The campaign was over in November.

CHENEY: I sounds to me like…

HANNITY: Seems to be — seems like campaign rhetoric, right?

CHENEY: Well, or beyond it. Maybe Hillary’s spending too much time with Howard.

HANNITY: That’s a good line. And Harry Reid.

[…]’

But as I was saying, the Hillary demonizers are only one group of right-wingers that want to see her run. Another group, the more surprising one, actually wants Hillary to be president because they seem to think that she will be just as much of a warmonger as any Republican candidate, and probably more so. Here’s what Weekly Standard writer and Fox News analyst Fred Barnes said, talking about the Youtube debate this month:

‘FOR HILLARY CLINTON, the presidency is not in the bag. Even winning the Democratic presidential nomination is considerably less than a sure thing. But of the 18 Democratic and Republican presidential candidates, Clinton is the most likely to be the next president. And she did nothing last night in the bizarre presidential debate in Charleston, South Carolina, to alter that.

Clinton managed to maintain at least the outward appearance of seriousness in a debate that included a taped question from someone dressed as a snowman, another from a sanctimonious Planned Parenthood official who asked if the candidates had talked to their kids about sex, and an especially silly one about whether the candidates would be willing to be paid the minimum wage as president. Most of them lied and said yes.’

Yes, here we go again with that “serious” thing. (Remember that old Kool Aid commercial?–“Now it’s time to get serious–SERIOUSLY WACKY!!”) And here’s an eerily similar comment from another creep, New Republic writer Michael Crowley:

‘But the one who stood out was Hillary. She shows really impressive poise and confidence, and didn’t lose her stride even in the face of offbeat questions about her gender and voter fatigue with the Clinton and Bush families. I also particularly liked her answer about nuclear power: She explained that nuclear has promise that is hard to tap for reasons of cost and waste–but that instead of writing it off (as John Edwards seemed to) we should redouble technological efforts to address those problems.’

These kind of people supporting Hillary is the one of best reasons yet to support Barack Obama.

Hillary Clinton will say anything or do anything to win the Democratic nomination–even friends of the Clintons sometimes let slip occasional truths about their dishonesty–and after that watch out for a Joe Lieberman-style strategy, where she courts the right wing to win the general election.