- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
July 11, 2008 at 3:08 pm #630826
KayleighMemberI share the dismay at Obama’s centrist posturing. :-(
I am also weary of the goombah-esque speak (Ken, your political posts are always insightful) coming from Hillary’s supporters. Please don’t blame Obama for whatever sexism, ageism, any other “ism” or maltreatment that they’ve received.
I’m not dismissing their (or your) experiences, Jo. I’m just weary of Obama being blamed as the problem when in reality, he’s the best shot at a solution we’ve got. (And if you think race isn’t a factor, watch the famous video of that NY Hillary supporter as she spits out her anger that Hillary was beaten by a BLACK man.)
July 11, 2008 at 4:16 pm #630827
JoBParticipantKayleigh..
that video was prompted by the very real anger feminists feel that once again their issues are being ignored.
they are right to feel that.
the equal rights amendment.. which states only that you can’t discriminate… is further from being ratified now than it was when i was a young woman and we supposedly won that fight.
it took nearly a hundred years after the feminist movement backed the passage of voting rights for black men with the promise that their voting rights would follow… before the right to vote was granted to women.
To a feminist who had to tolerate daily sexism in this campaign but whose campaign was immediately singled out for anything that even looked like racism.. this just looks like more of the same.
that isn’t racism speaking. that isn’t sexism speaking. that is frustration speaking.
that the networks chose to promote it as racism … and women believe it … just adds salt to the wound.
I don’t blame Obama for anything other than being true to his political history of campaigning on progressive platforms and legislating centurist at best.
I don’t even blame Obama supporters for buying it.
I do blame those who continue to speak of Clinton supporters as tho they were idiots, racists and sexists.
I blame them because that is the surest way for democrats to lose the election.
Votes are earned.. and you don’t earn them by insulting the people you hope will vote for your candidate.. and then blaming them if they don’t.
and if you think that hasn’t been a hallmark of this campaign.. i would urge you to read back through the political threads here…
the unofficial campaign often says far more about a movement than the soundbites granted on national television.
There is no blame attached to the statement that Obama’s message was not received well by a large portion of democratic voters… especially older voters..
Obama is positioning himself to speak to the religious (hopefully not so) right and forgetting that he hasn’t won the hearts and minds of nearly half of his own party. He just assumes they will vote for him.
Yes, he won the nomination.. and he will be the candidate. But that doesn’t mean he has earned the votes. And unless he does.. a large portion of democratic voters will just stay home on election day.
Regardless of what you might feel about the people who will ultimately decide this election (those who are not currently Obama enthusiasts) .. they are the ones who will decide whether Obama sits in the White House next year or we have one more failed democratic election.
it would be good for us to remember that we actually want something from those voters and treat them with respect… not disdain…
The only way to win this election is to be for something…
anger has not worked out so well for democrats in my lifetime.
cornering republican anger and righteousness won’t work so well without the support of the press… and they are not in Obama’s corner… at least.. not without a landslide.
So even though that worked to win the nomination.. it may not be the best strategy for the national election…
I can only speak to local Obama supporters.. who want this election..
do you want it badly enough to actually address the concerns of those who don’t already support the nominee.. something you were categorically unwilling to do during the primary?
because… although i am perfectly willing to do what i can to deliver votes for Obama… it isn’t my job to deliver victory for you… and it certainly isn’t my job to deliver victory in spite of you.
July 11, 2008 at 4:17 pm #630828
KenParticipantI want to see a commitment to health care.
I want to see nutrition programs for the poor.
I want to see the end of no child left behind.
I want to see whatever the religious office is in our white house dismantled.
This year anyone can have input into the platform. This does not mean any one or any group can change the platform by force of numbers, but it does mean anyone who can come up with and articulate a good idea that can seize the imagination and enthusiasm of the majority of Democratic delegates at the convention, can at least get a hearing.
http://www.democrats.org/a/2008/07/listening_to_am.php
Today the Democratic National Committee and Obama for America unveiled a bold new initiative to involve the American people in the development of the Democratic National Platform. This year, for the first time, voters will have the opportunity to take part in Platform Meetings in all 50 states to help shape the Democratic Platform. DNC Chairman Howard Dean also announced that Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano will chair the Platform Drafting Committee. Michael Yaki will serve as National Platform Director and Karen Kornbluh will be the Principal Author of the Platform.
Members of the public will be invited to host and attend Platform Meetings in their communities as an opportunity to exchange ideas and share perspectives on the challenges we face. To facilitate the process, the Obama campaign and the DNC will send policy experts and DNC Platform Committee members to as many meetings as possible to serve as facilitators. Each Platform Meeting will produce a written summary that will be reviewed and considered by the Platform Committee.
(More at the link)
Since we do not have an actual draft of the National platform at the moment, we can only surmise based on past platforms and our most current State convention platforms.
I don’t see any reason why this year should be any different from the last two GE cycles in the platform phase, nearly all state platforms start from the same core Dem values. WA will differ from LA and perhaps FL but the differences between other states is usually negligible.
Here we have the WA state Democratic Platform as adopted by the delegates (a majority of which are pledged to Obama) from WA state
http://www.moreperfect.org/wiki/index.php?title=Washington_State_Democratic_Party_Platform
The links below are anchors that point to the section where each of JoB’s points are addressed. I am aware that the WA party is way more specific than Senator Obama’s issue pages on all of these concerns but that’s the way campaigns are at this point in the process. I also think that most of these points are also valid criticisms of the gaps in issue statements on Senator Obama’s page but I knew from the start I was more “progressive” than either of the final two candidates and I don’t even like to use the word since as a student of history I am aware of some of the terrible mistakes of the progressive movement in the early 20th century. I am a liberal :)
Also a reminder. Issues and proposals are not laws. Without the down ticket support for more and better Dems (fewer Blue Dogs) none of these proposals are ever going to make it into law.
The founders did not talk about “Leaders” (except Hamilton), they talked about “representatives”. The people we elect are supposed to represent us, not lead us by the nose. Participation in the process on election day is not enough. We have to call our senators and representatives and show up at local events and meetings
( http://www.34dems.org/ ) is we want anyone to represent our interests. LBJ did not sign the Civil rights act because he loved it or though it was good for his or his parties near term future, he signed it because we the people forced him to.
I want to see a commitment to health care.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/healthcare/
Both Clinton and Obama avoid the elephant in the room: Health insurance companies have to be cut from the basic system like the cancer they have become. Their niche should be in elective and gold plated “care” for those who can afford the extra expense. Every country with universal single payer health care still has health insurance companies but they are not involved with the basic care system and are available to all who might choose them. This does not mean anyone choosing health insurance can opt out of the single payer funding program.
I want to see nutrition programs for the poor.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/poverty/
Both the party and the nominee use general terms concerning the anti poverty issue. Terms specific to nutrition are not mentioned. I am pretty sure Food Stamps, WIC and TANF are not in any danger from a Democratic House and Senate though it should be noted that the predecessor of TANF was AFDC which Bill Clinton decimated in 1997 with the help of several right wing members of congress.
I want to see the end of no child left behind.
http://www.moreperfect.org/wiki/index.php?title=Washington_State_Democratic_Party_Platform#Education
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/
NCLB should be repealed as far as I am concerned, but Obama’s plan to try funding the damn thing should probably get a test before we scrap it all together. WA needs to get it’s own house in order as well. Note Clinton voted for the original bill as did most Dems who foolishly believed the republicans and Bush ever intended to fund title 1 part of the bill. I suspect Obama did not vote for it only because he was not in the Senate yet. :) (Bi partisanship lesson # 347)
I want to see whatever the religious office is in our white house dismantled.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/faith/
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/civilrights/
This is one area where I believe both Clinton and Obama were wrong. The faith based initiatives need to be excised completely from the government or they should be strictly regulated to federal standards on hiring, civil rights and proselytizing. If so regulated, the idiots touting creationism, abstinence only sex education and other anti science BS would not accept the money or would not qualify for it in the first place. For those who think Clinton did not support them need to google a bit. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=hillary+clinton+on+faith+based&btnG=Search
Obama seems to want to level the playing field a bit but that is not good enough. The establishment clause of the first amendment is clear.
Anyone have any Senator Clinton’s proposals or promises which have more than a hairs breadth of difference between those of Senator Obama? Whip them out and let’s see what the differences are.
And on a personal note, those who find me abrasive now, I can only assume have good reason. I am not shy and I have strong opinions.
Just be thankful you never had to deal with the version of Ken 1.0 who had sleep apnea so bad he had to learn to ignore hallucinations in his periphial vision, rode a chopper and was spectacularly bad tempered and aggressive even on the best of days. The only thing that could keep me awake reliably was reading.
25 years ago CPAP fixed that and changed my personality to the only mildly annoying bastid I am today :)
I encourage anyone who suspects a sleep disorder to see a doctor asap.
(end PSA)
July 11, 2008 at 4:29 pm #630829
beachdrivegirlParticipantKen, once again you amazed me!
July 11, 2008 at 4:38 pm #630830
beachdrivegirlParticipantJoB,
I dont think that there are a significant number of Clinton supporters not willing to back Obama. The A/P and Yahoo did a poll days after Clintons resigingation and her public call out to her supporters to back Obama and this poll showed that more than half had already (due to party loyalty) began to back Obama.
IMO, as Clinton and Obama continue the fundraisers and events that they have been hosting the past few weeks I think more and more Clinton supporters will begin to back Obama.
Furthermore, as time goes on and voters get to learn more about both McCain and Obama I am 110% confident that they will back Obama.
Ken is dead on when he asks “Anyone have any Senator Clinton’s proposals or promises which have more than a hairs breadth of difference between those of Senator Obama? Whip them out and let’s see what the differences are.” I challenge YOU to that becuase I have read and read on both cnaidates (in the primary) and I did not see a significant difference.
And by startinig threads like this and continually brining up that Obama cant win does not help the party at all and does not bring us any closer to a victory it puts us in a weaker position.
July 11, 2008 at 4:50 pm #630831
JoBParticipantKen..
you speak of political platforms.. i would point out that Clinton supporters were not given much opportunity to influence the Washington State Platform..
We had no political leverage in Washington state..
however, we do have some political leverage on a national level.. and all i advocate is that we use it to our advantage.
I advocate that those who supported Hillary not give up on the fight she is still willing to wage for some measure of equity among Americans.
You compare the prospective nominees platforms.. as though campaign promises mean something… i compare their legislative records… which tell a different story.
I am not going to debate an issue which by it’s definition (campaign promises) can’t be won…
so.. you could say you have won the debate that never happened …
but does defining the debate so that you don’t acknowledge differences convince anyone who is not already an Obama supporter to vote for him?
Probably not.
That is what i see as the real problem.
……….
on a personal note.. i am glad you overcame your sleep apnea Ken.. and thank you for sharing our experience… your words will help someone.
i am certain that my own struggles with pain, fatigue and sleep make me a lot less gracious than i could be.. but certainly not less gracious than i was.. age really has mellowed me.
i too read to control my symptoms… sometimes a blessing in disguise…
You understand the ravages of lack of sleep because you have experienced them.
there is no way for you to understand the ravages of anti-feminism because you don’t live them… or to understand the consequences of turning a blind eye to anti-feminism on the most disadvantaged in our society.
feminism isn’t just about women’s rights.. it is also about looking at the world from a fundamentally different perspective…
Regardless of platforms.. that is something that Obama is incapable of doing… just as you are.
I don’t expect anyone who hasn’t lived that perspective to truly understand it..
but acknowledgment that it exists would go a long way towards mending alienation… that’s a start.
July 11, 2008 at 4:53 pm #630832
JoBParticipantbeachdrivegirl…
i didn’t say Obama can’t win.
I did say that it will take a lot of work to make it happen.
although you have polls which have convinced you there isn’t much work to be done… as a person who has invested a lot of effort in more elections than i care to remember.. i would counsel that polls don’t win an election.
votes do. and they have to be earned.
July 11, 2008 at 4:58 pm #630833
KenParticipantNo purity tests:)
Let the discussion roll on and lets thrash this out.
Those who have reservations about Obama need to drag them out where we can see them and dissect them. Pragmatism cannot be imposed from above any more than Democracy can be spread with guns and bombs.
There are always going to be differences between Democrats since our tent spreads in all directions but party unity is a pragmatic goal of getting us all working toward the same near term prize, not marching in lockstep through a narrow door.
After the election I hope to be here and on other blogs complaining about President Obamas latest variation from my personal orthodoxy. :)
July 11, 2008 at 5:22 pm #630834
JoBParticipantken..
thanks for providing such a good example of the differences in perspective…
yours…
“Those who have reservations about Obama need to drag them out where we can see them and dissect them.”
to you it’s a matter of cogent argument.
mine…
we need to find those who aren’t convinced and listen to what they have to say… and find some reason that matters to them for them to vote for him…
we need to win hearts and minds…
We both want the same end result.. an Obama vote.
we just see radically different ways of getting there… and as such have radically different perspectives on how to win those who aren’t convinced over..
i believe you have to empower people to convince them … you believe you have to win the argument…
no wonder we so often but heads….
July 11, 2008 at 5:30 pm #630835
KayleighMemberJo, if race was not a factor, why did she spit out “BLACK” man? She didn’t say “MAN”. She said, “BLACK” man. It translated in my head as, “how dare an uppity BLACK man usurp such an amazing WHITE woman.”
Deep down, you know race is a factor. Not with you, personally, but with many.
July 11, 2008 at 5:39 pm #630836
charlabobParticipantOK, let me posit my paranoid (but not unreasonable) theory. Which is that none of this matters because while we are all running around, scratching at the ground, trying to make sure to collect the right set of worms and bugs to ensure victory, THE REPUGS ARE FIGURING OUT HOW TO GUARANTEE VICTORY BY STEALING THE ELECTION OR SCARING THE AMERICAN(sic) PEOPLE TO DEATH SO THEY WILL VOTE FOR THEM.
We register half a million black folks in Georgia? Won’t matter because they, somehow, won’t have the “correct” ID. Not scared enough of terrorists–OOPS what was that bomb I heard in the middle of a mid-American city?
People, we’re fighting the wrong war here. We have to be getting ready NOW to be so scary and intimidating that they won’t even try. And I don’t see that happening yet, especially given our lack of reaction to the last two armed robberies.
Back to my bunker :-(
July 11, 2008 at 5:44 pm #630837
KenParticipantI don’t always go into a discussion with the goal of defeating an opponent. I often learn something I did not know or modify a position based on evidence.
But I am not always eager to compromise. The term empower as used by many (including at the last 34th dems meeting) grates on a nerve for some reason. I can’t exactly say why. Perhaps it has a different meaning for some.
Perhaps all the old documents I read which used it as “to invest with authority” is hard to convert to the current buzzword usage I tune out automatically. I used to have to translate corp speak to several hard core engineers and this was one of the words that always got dropped as meaningless in the context it was used in by the suits. I had to look it up to try and fit it into the current conversation.
What I found was not all that helpful but I think I can see its current usage..
For the edification of those following along at home:
Usage Note: Although it is a contemporary buzzword, the word empower is not new, having arisen in the mid-17th century with the legalistic meaning “to invest with authority, authorize.” Shortly thereafter it began to be used with an infinitive in a more general way meaning “to enable or permit.” Both of these uses survive today but have been overpowered by the word’s use in politics and pop psychology. Its modern use originated in the civil rights movement, which sought political empowerment for its followers. The word was then taken up by the women’s movement, and its appeal has not flagged. Since people of all political persuasions have a need for a word that makes their constituents feel that they are or are about to become more in control of their destinies, empower has been adopted by conservatives as well as social reformers. It has even migrated out of the political arena into other fields. · The Usage Panel has some misgivings about this recent broadening of usage. For the Panelists, the acceptability of the verb empower depends on the context. Eighty percent approve of the example We want to empower ordinary citizens. But in contexts that are not political the Panel is markedly less enthusiastic. The sentence Hunger and greed and then sexual zeal are felt by some to be stages of experience that empower the individual garners approval from only 33 percent of the Panelists. The Panel may frown on this kind of psychological empowering because it resonates of the self-help movement, which is notorious for trendy coinages.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/empower
You are good with words. Can you flesh out a bit just what those uncomfortable with Obama as nominee are looking for?
July 11, 2008 at 5:48 pm #630838
KenParticipantjoke from my archives for Charlabob:
Letterman 7-26-04
“Today was like the first day of the big Democratic National Convention there in Boston, and while the Democrats are holding their convention, the Republicans are down in Florida tinkering with the voting machines.”
July 11, 2008 at 5:59 pm #630839
charlabobParticipantThanks, Ken — I actually remember that — from back when we thought it was funny…OK, it still is. :-)
July 11, 2008 at 7:01 pm #630840
AnonymousInactivecharla – I wasn’t here then, but that is funny!
I also find it fascinating that Ken has charlabob archives…. I bet there’s a lot of good stuff in there!
July 11, 2008 at 7:09 pm #630841
charlabobParticipantUm, I think he found it in his generic archives FOR charlabob. I’d love to be an official Ken archive, but somehow, on my most egomaniacal days, I don’t go there :-)
July 11, 2008 at 7:11 pm #630842
AnonymousInactiveI’m very gullable, obviously.
July 11, 2008 at 7:32 pm #630843
KenParticipantA little something for the those women leaning toward McCain regardless of political affiliation.
Kos supplies the transcript but you can hear it yourself if you can stand the background noise level. I put his comments in parenthesis.
Carly Fiorina, potential McCain Veep:
I’ve been hearing a lot about from women: There are many health insurance plans that will cover Viagra but won’t cover birth control medication. Those women would like a choice.
(McCain was asked about it, and his answer:)
I certainly don’t want to discuss that issue.
(Straight talk in action! But the reporter, damn her! pressed on.)
I think you voted against… voted against coverage of birth control, forcing health insurance companies to cover birth control in the past. Is that still your position?
(There’s a looooong pause. McCain is clearly not eager to straight talk. Finally:)
I don’t recall that vote right now, but I’ll be glad to take a look at it and get back to you.
(A dodge or more evidence of memory loss? But the reporter persisted!)
I guess her statement was that it was unfair that health insurance companies cover Viagra but not birth control. Do you have an opinion on that?
(You can see McCain squirm uncomfortably. He’s definitely not in the mood for straight talking. After an even longer pause:)
I don’t know enough about it to give you an informed answer …
The video continues with the campaigns non answer about Grampa McCain being in favor of competition.
July 11, 2008 at 7:34 pm #630844
charlabobParticipantNo, just sweet. I’m sure he’d have such an archive if he’d known me then :-) Who wouldn’t?
July 11, 2008 at 7:38 pm #630845
AnonymousInactiveWell, I know that my personal favorite was the comment, “No, don’t ruin the Manolo’s!!!”
Can’t remember the thread, or even the topic, but I laughed my a** off!
July 11, 2008 at 7:45 pm #630846
AnonymousInactiveKen – I appreciate you transcribing the video (still no sound).
What a fool he looks like, huh? I’m jealous of Democrats, that you have found, and will continue to find, such great material.
I really hate that evasiveness he has when pressed on issues that he either, doesn’t know what his position should be or is uncomfortable discussing it.
July 11, 2008 at 8:08 pm #630847
JoBParticipantKayleigh…
she said BLACK man because black men were who feminists stepped aside for in their original quest for the vote.. and yes, it was either or…
they were promised assistance from those who lobbied for the black male vote first if they would step aside..
they were never given the assistance promised .. in fact, the reverse was true. once black males had their vote there was a group that lobbied to deny women theirs.
thus the statement that America would elect a black man before they would elect a woman… and the slogan which i think will come up after the election… “I’m not waiting another hundred years”.
Sometimes appearances can be deceiving…
Can i guarantee that this particular woman was alluding to that struggle.. no, i can’t. But it is highly likely.
I think in similar circumstances i could have said something that could be edited into an equally ugly sound bite… and i am as not-racist as it is possible for a white woman to be.
The equal rights ammendment has not yet been ratified.. it is not law.. we do not have equal rights to men under the law yet… and yet a black man is our nominee for President.
looks pretty good to be male to me…
the operative word being male …
because being male gives you one more advantage even when it comes to discrimination.
July 11, 2008 at 8:11 pm #630848
RSMemberDid you guys hear yesterday’s NPR story on “Latinas for McCain”? Some of reasons those women were giving for not liking Obama would have been funny if they weren’t so scary. The repugs don’t have to do anything, just sit back and let the misinformation continue to swirl around. I’m sure my southern family members wouldn’t feel comfortable admitting that they won’t vote for Obama because of race, but they have no problem saying that they don’t like him “because he’s a Muslim.” *sigh*
July 11, 2008 at 8:27 pm #630849
KayleighMemberI disagree entirely with your interpreation, Jo. I think she (and others) probably still see a white woman as a rung higher on the social status ladder, probably sometimes unconsciously. How galling to have him win.
Not all Americans (and not even all Democrats) think a woman in the White House trumps everything else.
July 11, 2008 at 8:30 pm #630850
beachdrivegirlParticipantVery well said Kayleigh!
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.