I have not really read any post-Election opinions written by my friends because I'm trying to keep my thoughts my thoughts and use my own words to get them out. That said, I feel like all the sentiments about which I plan to lament upon have already been lamented upon by many people so I apologize for any repetition.
Last night, I became a proud American. I'm not sure I've ever said that before. Sure, I was happy during the Clinton years, but I was probably too young to really feel proud and have that feeling be based in anything substantial. Last night, America voted for a man who has true potential to turn the course of this country around and bring respect back to us in the eyes of the world.
As all my friends and I happily basked in the news and held on to every word of both John McCain's concession and Barack Obama's victory speeches, I could almost hear the world breath a sigh of relief. The darkness of the last eight years may really be over. We have a chance now. We've reached the fork in the road. We can make this better before it's too late, but it has to be now. Americans proved last night that that IS what they want.
Barack Obama is the face of America in the 21st century. He comes from a mixed racial background, middle class, raised by his mother and then grandparents, worked his way up. He was not born into prominence. He did not get to where he finds himself today because of his background, but because of his work ethic. He can be seen, in many ways, as the embodiment of the American dream, a dream that is - mostly - mythical, but can still be found in the greatest and most determined of citizens and I think we will see more American dreams coming true with Barack Obama as our leader. I'm not sure how the McCain campaign became the face of "real" America, but Barack Obama lived that: he lived the middle class life and became an example of what "real" Americans can achieve. He proved that you really can work your way up, but you have to want it and you have to try. He proved that America gives you opportunities few other countries can afford and that those who have benefited most from America should give the most back: in his case, running for the highest office with hopes of making America - and the world - better. (All he's asking the rest of you to do is pay a few more taxes so we can, yanno, have roads and schools and fire departments: silly stuff like that!)
He proved that America really can change and that sentiment was obvious in the tears of Jesse Jackson, Oprah, and every other Barack Obama supporter brought to tears last night. Working the polls yesterday, a new excitement was tough to deny.
His victory does not necessarily mean that we can stop worrying. Obama is still a politician and politicians break promises, but his message throughout the campaign resonated from coast to coast in all kinds of people. During the campaign, he managed to change the mind set in America from one that would stickily vote for old white guys to one that would vote for a young minority if he stood for what they stood for. Thankfully, what we stand for in the aftermath of this election are the ideals of hope, change, cooperation, and unity.
Notably, Barack Obama's victory speech was a serious one. He didn't give us the usual "USA USA WE'RE NUMBER ONE WE'RE NUMBER ONE!" speech. He didn't pound his chest or dance on McCain's (hypothetical) grave. He told us truths. While he'd never say it, he knows Americans can often be selfish and individualistic and that this country needs cooperation and selflessness to survive. This wasn't a "we can stop fighting now: the battle's over" speech. This was a "the battle's just beginning" speech. President Obama can't fix the world, but - hopefully - he can convince the world into fixing itself using sound plans and peaceful negotiations. The work behind us pales in comparison to the work ahead of us and I don't think Americans like to think of themselves as people on whom work is needed, but we are. We have to reach out to our neighbors and help those who are down of their luck. We can't just think of ourselves anymore, but of our communities and of the world and we have to recognize that we don't live in our own little bubbles.
Are Americans up for that?
Obama has set high expectations for himself among his supporters and I don't expect him to live up to every single one of them, but I do expect him to run this country efficiently and intelligently with eloquence and grace. I expect the agenda of 'making America strong again' to be the only agenda, not the agenda in addition to his super-secret hidden agenda. I am forever skeptical, but I have hope and I know that Barack Obama - right now - is the man we need, even if just to prove that the ideals for which he claims to stand are ideals Americans, too, share.
As of 11pm on November 4th, 2008, America elected a new president. He will face the greatest challenges of any new president in cleaning up the last eight years, but he is young and smart and - if anyone can do it - it is he.
**EDIT** And just when I become proud of my country, it disappoints me again: http://news.aol.com/elections/article/ballot-initiatives/237398. More to come, I'm sure.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Monday, November 3, 2008
One Day Left Until Election Day 2008
Normally, I try to cite a news article or some sort of current event as basis for an entry because, otherwise, this blog is sort of purely opinion based, but - on this occasion - I think all I want to do is share an opinion.
Regardless of what the McCain campaign and their Fox News partners want to spew about the "east coast elites" and the "un-American" parts of the country, I know that - for my friends and I - we care so deeply about this country that we want only the best for it and the best doesn't come from divisive politics or fear mongering. The best America can be, for right now, is unattainable unless her leaders drastically change course and, yes, possibly even admit some wrong-doing. America has lost her respect and much of her power in the eyes of the world. Her people are tattered and tired, but - I don't believe - done, by any means.
We need leadership, though. Real leadership. We need someone who will stop spewing bullshit and be honest...as honest as any politician really can be, at least. Obama has the potential to change America's direction. Personally, his "inexperience" is almost a plus for me because, as I'm sure I've lamented before, I feel he isn't as entrenched in the Washington status quo as McCain (or even Clinton). You can't survive in politics without becoming indebted to someone, but I do think he has tried to keep his hands pretty clean. He has a vision. He has intelligence and eloquence. He has the potential to bring respect and class back to a country that's lacked it for so fucking long.
America's democracy is in trouble. We shouldn't have people waiting out in line for two to eight hours outside polling places. We shouldn't have fear and confusion in polling booths. It shouldn't even cross our minds in this country that a vote may not be counted. People have to know their rights; they have to know that - even if there are police officers everywhere - it's still their right to vote and they can intimidate you, but they can't stop you. (Well, unless you're actually doing something aside from voting that is illegal. Haha.) We need an informed electorate and this race, more so than any other in recent history, seems to have gotten people who would otherwise look away, to stand up and notice what's going on around them. I only hope they actually go out and vote. While McCain is certainly not the most heinous among the Republican party, what good will he bring to the nation? What change has he really told us he'd bring to the White House? McCain would not be the worst case scenario, but Palin really would be.
Anyone who was on the fence between Obama and McCain should have flung himself excitedly over to Obama's side after the announcement of Sarah Palin for Vice President. That decision alone proves how unequipped he is for the presidency. She does nothing but tell Americans over and over how perfect America is and how - to be a true American - you have to blindly follow failing leadership; you have to think America is great even when the evidence around you proves we have serious problems both in our backyards and overseas. Is it really un-American to point out your country's short-comings and vow to improve upon them? Lying to your fellow people, to other countries, and to yourself about America's perfection helps NO ONE, so stop calling Michelle Obama and the rest of us "unpatriotic" for not being proud of America's behavior. Over the passed five years, America has lost over 4,000 citizens to a war in Iraq (http://icasualties.org/oif/) not to mention soldiers from other countries, Iraqi solders, Iraqi civilians, the wounded, the troops in Afghanistan, or the families of all of the above. There are countless lives that have been ruined, so don't tell me America should be proud of it. There ARE things more important than being right, America. Like being smart. And smart is something Barack Obama exudes. He will - responsibly - end this nightmare.
We need to shred this "mightier than thou," "city on a hill," American exceptionalism shit and realize we are not the only players in the world anymore...and the world is shrinking. McCain hounds Obama for saying he'd meet with world leaders (specifically Ahmadinejad) without "preconditions." Yes, Obama thinks negotiation without preconditions is better than no negotiations at all...how terrible. We can't keep ragging on people and expecting them to drop their beliefs (no matter how passionately we may disagree with them) just because the mighty U.S. wants it so. There has to be understanding. There has to be compromise. Omaba seems like a man who knows the world is bigger than America's borders. American isolation simply will not work and we have to be active (but RESPONSIBLE) as a world leader...while we can still call ourselves one.
We also have to help our own right here. We can't have people falling more and more in debt, taking out loans only to dig deeper holes. It's a wretched cycle most Americans face as early as college (for those lucky enough to attend) with college loans. At 21 years old, you can find yourself under piles of debt. The cost of living goes up, while jobs decrease; they get sent elsewhere. We give breaks to big businesses so they'll stay big while the small ones get smaller and smaller until there are no Mom 'n' Pop places anymore. (As much as I do love my Starbucks, I'd take a smaller, independent coffee shop over it any day.) Maybe "spreading the wealth" sounds like Socialism, but I certainly think it's better than keeping all the wealth in the hands of the wealthy while the rest of us (and the economy) find ourselves in the shitter.
Further, we need to end the era of bigotry and hatred within our borders. In 2008, whether Barack Obama is an Arab shouldn't even be a factor. You shouldn't vote for him just because he's black, but you should also not vote against him because he's black. I don't dislike Palin because she has a vagina; I dislike her because everything about her, to me, is anti-American, anti-women, anti-environment, anti-civil rights, and anti-progressivism in general. In 2008, there is no reason why gays shouldn't - without question - have the right to marry. In 2008, there is NO reason why America is not leading the way towards energy efficient cars, homes, dogs, cats, everything! There's no reason for it and it needs to change. It needed to change four years ago, but...we'll take it now.
Election Day is tomorrow. I'm a mess of anxiety and excitement. I have little crying fits. I want to see this county be so much healthier than it is and has been for the last eight years.
The last eight years should have been so much different. Let's make the next eight brighter. Let's pull out of this period of de-regulation and executive-privilege-on-steroids and make America a country about which we can all feel truly proud again.
Please go out and vote tomorrow. It is one of the only parts of American "democracy" in which citizens actually get to be involved. There are many websites with polling information. One I came across is: http://www.vote411.org and it seems very helpful. Most polling places open between 6am and 8am and close between 6pm and 8pm. It's your right and the country needs you.
Regardless of what the McCain campaign and their Fox News partners want to spew about the "east coast elites" and the "un-American" parts of the country, I know that - for my friends and I - we care so deeply about this country that we want only the best for it and the best doesn't come from divisive politics or fear mongering. The best America can be, for right now, is unattainable unless her leaders drastically change course and, yes, possibly even admit some wrong-doing. America has lost her respect and much of her power in the eyes of the world. Her people are tattered and tired, but - I don't believe - done, by any means.
We need leadership, though. Real leadership. We need someone who will stop spewing bullshit and be honest...as honest as any politician really can be, at least. Obama has the potential to change America's direction. Personally, his "inexperience" is almost a plus for me because, as I'm sure I've lamented before, I feel he isn't as entrenched in the Washington status quo as McCain (or even Clinton). You can't survive in politics without becoming indebted to someone, but I do think he has tried to keep his hands pretty clean. He has a vision. He has intelligence and eloquence. He has the potential to bring respect and class back to a country that's lacked it for so fucking long.
America's democracy is in trouble. We shouldn't have people waiting out in line for two to eight hours outside polling places. We shouldn't have fear and confusion in polling booths. It shouldn't even cross our minds in this country that a vote may not be counted. People have to know their rights; they have to know that - even if there are police officers everywhere - it's still their right to vote and they can intimidate you, but they can't stop you. (Well, unless you're actually doing something aside from voting that is illegal. Haha.) We need an informed electorate and this race, more so than any other in recent history, seems to have gotten people who would otherwise look away, to stand up and notice what's going on around them. I only hope they actually go out and vote. While McCain is certainly not the most heinous among the Republican party, what good will he bring to the nation? What change has he really told us he'd bring to the White House? McCain would not be the worst case scenario, but Palin really would be.
Anyone who was on the fence between Obama and McCain should have flung himself excitedly over to Obama's side after the announcement of Sarah Palin for Vice President. That decision alone proves how unequipped he is for the presidency. She does nothing but tell Americans over and over how perfect America is and how - to be a true American - you have to blindly follow failing leadership; you have to think America is great even when the evidence around you proves we have serious problems both in our backyards and overseas. Is it really un-American to point out your country's short-comings and vow to improve upon them? Lying to your fellow people, to other countries, and to yourself about America's perfection helps NO ONE, so stop calling Michelle Obama and the rest of us "unpatriotic" for not being proud of America's behavior. Over the passed five years, America has lost over 4,000 citizens to a war in Iraq (http://icasualties.org/oif/) not to mention soldiers from other countries, Iraqi solders, Iraqi civilians, the wounded, the troops in Afghanistan, or the families of all of the above. There are countless lives that have been ruined, so don't tell me America should be proud of it. There ARE things more important than being right, America. Like being smart. And smart is something Barack Obama exudes. He will - responsibly - end this nightmare.
We need to shred this "mightier than thou," "city on a hill," American exceptionalism shit and realize we are not the only players in the world anymore...and the world is shrinking. McCain hounds Obama for saying he'd meet with world leaders (specifically Ahmadinejad) without "preconditions." Yes, Obama thinks negotiation without preconditions is better than no negotiations at all...how terrible. We can't keep ragging on people and expecting them to drop their beliefs (no matter how passionately we may disagree with them) just because the mighty U.S. wants it so. There has to be understanding. There has to be compromise. Omaba seems like a man who knows the world is bigger than America's borders. American isolation simply will not work and we have to be active (but RESPONSIBLE) as a world leader...while we can still call ourselves one.
We also have to help our own right here. We can't have people falling more and more in debt, taking out loans only to dig deeper holes. It's a wretched cycle most Americans face as early as college (for those lucky enough to attend) with college loans. At 21 years old, you can find yourself under piles of debt. The cost of living goes up, while jobs decrease; they get sent elsewhere. We give breaks to big businesses so they'll stay big while the small ones get smaller and smaller until there are no Mom 'n' Pop places anymore. (As much as I do love my Starbucks, I'd take a smaller, independent coffee shop over it any day.) Maybe "spreading the wealth" sounds like Socialism, but I certainly think it's better than keeping all the wealth in the hands of the wealthy while the rest of us (and the economy) find ourselves in the shitter.
Further, we need to end the era of bigotry and hatred within our borders. In 2008, whether Barack Obama is an Arab shouldn't even be a factor. You shouldn't vote for him just because he's black, but you should also not vote against him because he's black. I don't dislike Palin because she has a vagina; I dislike her because everything about her, to me, is anti-American, anti-women, anti-environment, anti-civil rights, and anti-progressivism in general. In 2008, there is no reason why gays shouldn't - without question - have the right to marry. In 2008, there is NO reason why America is not leading the way towards energy efficient cars, homes, dogs, cats, everything! There's no reason for it and it needs to change. It needed to change four years ago, but...we'll take it now.
Election Day is tomorrow. I'm a mess of anxiety and excitement. I have little crying fits. I want to see this county be so much healthier than it is and has been for the last eight years.
The last eight years should have been so much different. Let's make the next eight brighter. Let's pull out of this period of de-regulation and executive-privilege-on-steroids and make America a country about which we can all feel truly proud again.
Please go out and vote tomorrow. It is one of the only parts of American "democracy" in which citizens actually get to be involved. There are many websites with polling information. One I came across is: http://www.vote411.org and it seems very helpful. Most polling places open between 6am and 8am and close between 6pm and 8pm. It's your right and the country needs you.
Monday, September 15, 2008
No, Sarah Palin Really Isn't Hillary Clinton. Promise.
You probably know it better than me, but it really seems like your country is in trouble! Things were looking up with Obama and all, but the Republicans are up to their usual antics, or even worse. The actuaries put McCain at 30% chance of dying in his first term. Then it's president Palin!
The future is going to be very turbulent, partly because of the loss of wealth and influence that the US will experience, especially if the Republicans are elected again. It's quite sad to see what is happeneing, to the extent that I almost cancelled my trip to go somewhere like Japan or Australia! But I'm sure it will still be interesting to see what it is like in the US.
At least you can console yourself with this fact: No matter how bad it seems there, the things that are happening with my country's leadership is worse! At least there intelligent people almost have a chance to elect a reasonable government. Here, we are just resigned to the fact that it will be an idiot of epic proportions.
- Written by Warren / my friend in South Africa
in his recent email to me.
-------------------------------------------------
Naturally, promting a long response (with a few additions including the video):
(Written back to Warren)
...
Ugh...the election. Yeah. From my perspective, Obama is the best guy for the job. I've heard reports from European media outlets that say people in Europe think Obama would heal international relations. Is that the basic feeling there too? He wasn't my top pick, but - between Clinton and Obama - I voted Obama in the primary.
The fact that the polls have this election so close is disgusting. If McCain is elected, the entire world is going to laugh at us collectively (not that they haven't been the last eight years)...and then weep. I don't know what - if any - of the convention coverage you saw or read, but somehow the Republicans were trying to paint themselves as bringers of change. If their party was so great, why would people want change in the first place and WHY ON EARTH would we elect the same guys to bring about that change?
And Palin...oh, God. That is the most hypocritical and blatantly strategic move I've ever seen. They attack Obama's "inexperience" and then nominate someone with less experience than he for the second most important position in the country? With a presidential candidate in his 70's. Wonderful. She doesn't know anything about foreign policy. She did this interview and she was on the defensive the whole time while the interviewer really wasn't trying to fool her, I don't think. The interviewer (Charles Gibson) was calm and relaxed and was asking her honest questions about herself and her qualifications. She doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is!? I wouldn't expect any regular citizen to know what that is, but anyone looking to be president should. Period. If I know what it is, so should this woman. My mom doesn't, but she's not a student of politics; she's not running for anything. Granted, the Doctrine has had a few incarnations since its first inception during Bush Senior's presidency.
This isn't fucking rocket science. I learned it in American Defense Policy as a second year political science student and I probably should have learned it sooner, but it was only the second international relations course I took. Does she know what the NPT is? North Korea ring a bell?
Aside from that, I pray that the women in my country are smarter than McCain thinks they are. If they do even minimal research they will find that Palin is NOT a stand-in for Hillary Clinton. I didn't vote for Clinton mainly because I worried that she is already too immersed in the Washington status quo that she won't want to change a lot of it...she's in debt to a lot of it. I just think Washington as a whole is corrupt (with lobbying, partisan bickering, etc.) and needs someone new who ISN'T waste-deep in it to try to clean it up. Obama's in it, but not as deeply, I think...I hope. I think Clinton would be good at the job and better than McCain, certainly, but I wanted Obama if those were my choices. Regardless, Palin IS NOT Hillary Clinton and I really want to see Clinton out there telling her supporters how she and Palin are polar opposites. Have you heard of "PUMA?" They are former Hillary supporters who have vowed to vote McCain in Clinton's absence. I don't understand it at all, but she has a lot of supporters considering McCain and with this Palin nomination, they may win some over. Clinton really needs to get out there and tell people the truth about Palin, that this woman does not stand for woman's reproductive rights, for gender equality, for gay rights, not even for gun safety. As I think they said in SNL this week: she thinks global warming is God hugging a little too tight. Haha...so that's may be too much, but you get the point. And It's appalling. Everything about this woman angers and sickens me. And saddens me.
Lastly, all this shit about sexism coming out NOW, now that we know Palin's daughter is pregnant especially. It was - apparently - perfectly acceptable for people to be sexist against an evil liberal like Hillary Clinton, but not this little lady with her "American" values. They want to say Bristol's pregnancy is a family matter. What does it say about her parents' ability to control their children? She's 17 and unmarried. Abstinence education didn't work within her own family, but it's good enough for the country? They said it was Bristol's "decision" to have the baby. (A) She didn't have a choice because of her family's conservatism and the fact that the spotlight is squarely on her now. (B) Let's say, for argument's sake, the family did allow Bristol to choose...the very fact that women have that right - that Bristol / her family had the right - to choose would be taken away is Palin had her way.
They said it was Bristol's decision and that the media should stay out of it; it's a private decision. Yes, it IS a private decision. But Palin would allot the government the right to make that decision if she had her way: and the decision would be to keep the baby even in cases of rape and incest. Her family is taking advantage of a freedom this country has for the time being, a freedom that they would have taken away so that it is no longer a private decision, but a governmental one, if they have their way.
How can that sound like a good way to run a country? As far as economic and foreign policy, I can't even talk since she has little knowledge or experience with either. McCain's war view is to keep it going, but how are we going to win anyone over while we're bombing them? I often wonder how George Bush sleeps at night...especially after the recent anniversary of the terror attacks. Watching the memorial stuff and all the shows about the buildings' collapsing: the whole time Bush had a warning. Nothing was done preceding the attacks to warn or prepare citizens and little has been done in the aftermath to prevent it from happening again. We got caught with our pants down and then turned around and bombed a bunch of innocent people. Awesome. A+, America. Way to fucking go. That's how we win hearts and minds...by scaring them into loving us and killing the rest.
Nah...I'm not bitter at all.
Sorry for that long rant. You can't get me started on politics in an election year and expect me NOT to go off! I'm very interested in your take on everything and what you've heard or know about the election. What is the political situation where you are? Since it's an election year here, it's like all other news just stops.
...
-------------------------------------------------
Lastly, and this is just for a quick LOL, Warren sent me this:
These are questions the US asks those applying for VISAs. He is in the process of planning of trip here in the winter. Number 3 is my favorite. Because, apparently, the terrorists who were smart enough to plan the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 are dumb enough to tell you that they are terrorists who want access to our country.
The future is going to be very turbulent, partly because of the loss of wealth and influence that the US will experience, especially if the Republicans are elected again. It's quite sad to see what is happeneing, to the extent that I almost cancelled my trip to go somewhere like Japan or Australia! But I'm sure it will still be interesting to see what it is like in the US.
At least you can console yourself with this fact: No matter how bad it seems there, the things that are happening with my country's leadership is worse! At least there intelligent people almost have a chance to elect a reasonable government. Here, we are just resigned to the fact that it will be an idiot of epic proportions.
- Written by Warren / my friend in South Africa
in his recent email to me.
-------------------------------------------------
Naturally, promting a long response (with a few additions including the video):
(Written back to Warren)
...
Ugh...the election. Yeah. From my perspective, Obama is the best guy for the job. I've heard reports from European media outlets that say people in Europe think Obama would heal international relations. Is that the basic feeling there too? He wasn't my top pick, but - between Clinton and Obama - I voted Obama in the primary.
The fact that the polls have this election so close is disgusting. If McCain is elected, the entire world is going to laugh at us collectively (not that they haven't been the last eight years)...and then weep. I don't know what - if any - of the convention coverage you saw or read, but somehow the Republicans were trying to paint themselves as bringers of change. If their party was so great, why would people want change in the first place and WHY ON EARTH would we elect the same guys to bring about that change?
And Palin...oh, God. That is the most hypocritical and blatantly strategic move I've ever seen. They attack Obama's "inexperience" and then nominate someone with less experience than he for the second most important position in the country? With a presidential candidate in his 70's. Wonderful. She doesn't know anything about foreign policy. She did this interview and she was on the defensive the whole time while the interviewer really wasn't trying to fool her, I don't think. The interviewer (Charles Gibson) was calm and relaxed and was asking her honest questions about herself and her qualifications. She doesn't know what the Bush Doctrine is!? I wouldn't expect any regular citizen to know what that is, but anyone looking to be president should. Period. If I know what it is, so should this woman. My mom doesn't, but she's not a student of politics; she's not running for anything. Granted, the Doctrine has had a few incarnations since its first inception during Bush Senior's presidency.
This isn't fucking rocket science. I learned it in American Defense Policy as a second year political science student and I probably should have learned it sooner, but it was only the second international relations course I took. Does she know what the NPT is? North Korea ring a bell?
Aside from that, I pray that the women in my country are smarter than McCain thinks they are. If they do even minimal research they will find that Palin is NOT a stand-in for Hillary Clinton. I didn't vote for Clinton mainly because I worried that she is already too immersed in the Washington status quo that she won't want to change a lot of it...she's in debt to a lot of it. I just think Washington as a whole is corrupt (with lobbying, partisan bickering, etc.) and needs someone new who ISN'T waste-deep in it to try to clean it up. Obama's in it, but not as deeply, I think...I hope. I think Clinton would be good at the job and better than McCain, certainly, but I wanted Obama if those were my choices. Regardless, Palin IS NOT Hillary Clinton and I really want to see Clinton out there telling her supporters how she and Palin are polar opposites. Have you heard of "PUMA?" They are former Hillary supporters who have vowed to vote McCain in Clinton's absence. I don't understand it at all, but she has a lot of supporters considering McCain and with this Palin nomination, they may win some over. Clinton really needs to get out there and tell people the truth about Palin, that this woman does not stand for woman's reproductive rights, for gender equality, for gay rights, not even for gun safety. As I think they said in SNL this week: she thinks global warming is God hugging a little too tight. Haha...so that's may be too much, but you get the point. And It's appalling. Everything about this woman angers and sickens me. And saddens me.
Lastly, all this shit about sexism coming out NOW, now that we know Palin's daughter is pregnant especially. It was - apparently - perfectly acceptable for people to be sexist against an evil liberal like Hillary Clinton, but not this little lady with her "American" values. They want to say Bristol's pregnancy is a family matter. What does it say about her parents' ability to control their children? She's 17 and unmarried. Abstinence education didn't work within her own family, but it's good enough for the country? They said it was Bristol's "decision" to have the baby. (A) She didn't have a choice because of her family's conservatism and the fact that the spotlight is squarely on her now. (B) Let's say, for argument's sake, the family did allow Bristol to choose...the very fact that women have that right - that Bristol / her family had the right - to choose would be taken away is Palin had her way.
They said it was Bristol's decision and that the media should stay out of it; it's a private decision. Yes, it IS a private decision. But Palin would allot the government the right to make that decision if she had her way: and the decision would be to keep the baby even in cases of rape and incest. Her family is taking advantage of a freedom this country has for the time being, a freedom that they would have taken away so that it is no longer a private decision, but a governmental one, if they have their way.
How can that sound like a good way to run a country? As far as economic and foreign policy, I can't even talk since she has little knowledge or experience with either. McCain's war view is to keep it going, but how are we going to win anyone over while we're bombing them? I often wonder how George Bush sleeps at night...especially after the recent anniversary of the terror attacks. Watching the memorial stuff and all the shows about the buildings' collapsing: the whole time Bush had a warning. Nothing was done preceding the attacks to warn or prepare citizens and little has been done in the aftermath to prevent it from happening again. We got caught with our pants down and then turned around and bombed a bunch of innocent people. Awesome. A+, America. Way to fucking go. That's how we win hearts and minds...by scaring them into loving us and killing the rest.
Nah...I'm not bitter at all.
Sorry for that long rant. You can't get me started on politics in an election year and expect me NOT to go off! I'm very interested in your take on everything and what you've heard or know about the election. What is the political situation where you are? Since it's an election year here, it's like all other news just stops.
...
-------------------------------------------------
Lastly, and this is just for a quick LOL, Warren sent me this:
These are questions the US asks those applying for VISAs. He is in the process of planning of trip here in the winter. Number 3 is my favorite. Because, apparently, the terrorists who were smart enough to plan the terror attacks of September 11, 2001 are dumb enough to tell you that they are terrorists who want access to our country.
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Empty Gestures
"I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest," he added. "Instead I'm gonna try to tell the American people what I believe what will make this country great and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism." - Barack Obama (October 2007)
I'm tired of people looking at a politician (or anyone, really) and checking off their marks of patriotism. I'm a little tired of 'patriotism' even being in the debate at all. People express their patriotism in different ways. I usually feel that being knowledgeable enough to speak out against certain political moves (or being able to coherently defend them) is the best form of patriotism. While others think rallying around the president in war time is patriotic, I stick by descension being the greatest form of patriotism: speaking out when things are getting too fucked up and doing your part to stop it. That's what it means to be patriotic. It's not lapel pins; it's not car magnets; it's not flags on your antennae. Learn something. Care about something.
Instead, what we have more and more is people looking at a person's name and calling him a terrorist. Or looking at his pin-less lapel and saying he lacks patriotism.
Exactly what does wearing a pin tell me about Barack Obama (or anyone else)? Does it tell me what his economic plan is? Does it tell me his health care views? Does it tell me how long he'll keep the US in Iraq?
No.
He made a choice not to wear a pin because he doesn't wear his patriotism in a small metal button on his jacket. He expresses it by (a) having a vision to fix the country, (b) knowing enough and having plans towards achieving a healthier country, and (c) being bold enough to run for the cursed job on president despite all the hurdles which still lay in front of him.
I don't think it's unpatriotic for Obama (or anyone else) to ignore the lapel pin trend in Washington because the most unpatriotic of people can still pin a little flag on themselves and say they want what's best: fucking SHOW me. I dare you. George W. Bush isn't a patriot; he's an emperor. All his pin tells me is that he knows how to put a pin on his jacket...or, at least, knows someone who can do that task for him.
But this is an old rant that was re-ignited Friday night. All the English classes I've been taking this semester have forced me to spend less time reading news articles and things I would normally fit into my schedule, but I have to have my nightly therapy of either "The Daily Show" or "Real Time With Bill Maher."
This picture was shown on "Real Time" this week:
The picture plainly shows Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, and Hillary Clinton standing in front of an American flag, all with hands over their hearts except Obama. I have been unable to find anything online about what Maher said about the picture, but he claimed that it was being used against Obama: as a sign he does not respect America because his hand was not over his heart. What Obama's opposition neglects to mention is that the photo was not taken during a recitation of "The Pledge Of Allegance" (as even the caption on www.time.com states), rather "The Star-Spangled Banner."
What difference does it make?
The difference is that the only time it is "required" to put your hand over your heart is during the recitation of the former, NOT the latter. It is, in fact, unnecessary and sometimes incorrect to place your hand over your heart for "The Star-Spangled Banner," "God Bless America," or any of America's other theme songs.
I guess this goes back to my main theme: stop feeding me bullshit and show me what you're really about. But, even more to the point, the American public needs to stop eating the bullshit. Wearing a pin and placing your hand over your heart means NOTHING. Nothing. And whether it's Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or someone else: it still means nothing. Prove to me that you're a patriot by acting in a way that promotes the country's well being! Be a fucking public servant and do the job WELL. This country deserves it after eight years of terrible mismanagement and diservice.
I'm tired of people looking at a politician (or anyone, really) and checking off their marks of patriotism. I'm a little tired of 'patriotism' even being in the debate at all. People express their patriotism in different ways. I usually feel that being knowledgeable enough to speak out against certain political moves (or being able to coherently defend them) is the best form of patriotism. While others think rallying around the president in war time is patriotic, I stick by descension being the greatest form of patriotism: speaking out when things are getting too fucked up and doing your part to stop it. That's what it means to be patriotic. It's not lapel pins; it's not car magnets; it's not flags on your antennae. Learn something. Care about something.
Instead, what we have more and more is people looking at a person's name and calling him a terrorist. Or looking at his pin-less lapel and saying he lacks patriotism.
Exactly what does wearing a pin tell me about Barack Obama (or anyone else)? Does it tell me what his economic plan is? Does it tell me his health care views? Does it tell me how long he'll keep the US in Iraq?
No.
He made a choice not to wear a pin because he doesn't wear his patriotism in a small metal button on his jacket. He expresses it by (a) having a vision to fix the country, (b) knowing enough and having plans towards achieving a healthier country, and (c) being bold enough to run for the cursed job on president despite all the hurdles which still lay in front of him.
I don't think it's unpatriotic for Obama (or anyone else) to ignore the lapel pin trend in Washington because the most unpatriotic of people can still pin a little flag on themselves and say they want what's best: fucking SHOW me. I dare you. George W. Bush isn't a patriot; he's an emperor. All his pin tells me is that he knows how to put a pin on his jacket...or, at least, knows someone who can do that task for him.
But this is an old rant that was re-ignited Friday night. All the English classes I've been taking this semester have forced me to spend less time reading news articles and things I would normally fit into my schedule, but I have to have my nightly therapy of either "The Daily Show" or "Real Time With Bill Maher."
This picture was shown on "Real Time" this week:
The picture plainly shows Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, and Hillary Clinton standing in front of an American flag, all with hands over their hearts except Obama. I have been unable to find anything online about what Maher said about the picture, but he claimed that it was being used against Obama: as a sign he does not respect America because his hand was not over his heart. What Obama's opposition neglects to mention is that the photo was not taken during a recitation of "The Pledge Of Allegance" (as even the caption on www.time.com states), rather "The Star-Spangled Banner."
What difference does it make?
The difference is that the only time it is "required" to put your hand over your heart is during the recitation of the former, NOT the latter. It is, in fact, unnecessary and sometimes incorrect to place your hand over your heart for "The Star-Spangled Banner," "God Bless America," or any of America's other theme songs.
I guess this goes back to my main theme: stop feeding me bullshit and show me what you're really about. But, even more to the point, the American public needs to stop eating the bullshit. Wearing a pin and placing your hand over your heart means NOTHING. Nothing. And whether it's Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, or someone else: it still means nothing. Prove to me that you're a patriot by acting in a way that promotes the country's well being! Be a fucking public servant and do the job WELL. This country deserves it after eight years of terrible mismanagement and diservice.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Dennis Kucinich: Forever And Always
Imagine a Congress with no voice for impeachment. Imagine Congress with no questions about Iraqi civilian casualties. Imagine a Congress without Kucinich when Bush decides on his pretext for war against Iran. Imagine the worst, because that is what we will have if Kucinich is defeated.
As if I wasn't depressed enough about Kucinich's lack of a chance in the presidential election, now this?
No one should feel this disheartened in the political system at 21 years old. I've researched Kucinich and, everywhere I look, his name is attached to ideas that I whole-heartedly agree with, though they maybe radical ideas for anyone who actually wants to be in (or remain in) office. As I've written previously, in my observations, it seems like major party candidates make careers out of catering to whatever audience is listening. Though I will vote for Obama if nominated, my vote is in full acknowledgement of his guilt in this; a guilt I don't think can be avoided in today's political climate.
It's a symptom, though, of a sick political system as a whole. The ways in which politicians are elected: it's not about experience, but about name recognition (which is closely associated with funding). Even candidates who desperately want to do something good and change the landscape of government face enormous challenges in even being recognized as serious candidates without support of big business or influential lobbies. So, unless you are ridiculously rich and can, somehow, run an entire campaign on your own money, you wind up having to cozy up next to people you may have wanted to avoid, just to stay in the game.
Though the founders obviously did not think very highly of common folk (as evident by their decision to create the Electoral College to help decide election outcomes), I don't think they ever quite envisioned a political system that was so married to corporations and money. Just because a man is rich does not make him worthy of running a country.
The idea of "democracy" is not the type on government by which we claim to live today. Democracy is government for the people, by the people. This is PoliSci101. In a democracy - literally - EVERYONE has a say. Rather, what we have is a rather loose form of a republic; we have a representative government. There's nothing wrong with that except that we're kidding ourselves if we think there's anything about OUR form of republic that is true to its name.
This is something for which I don't even completely blame our government. WE don't vote. WE don't allow our government to hear our voices. WE say nothing more than we should. And then, when we actually do vote, many of us are not informed enough to vote for the candidates which best represent who we are and who are most qualified to defend our priorities and values. But, this is a rant better writers have gone on and - if you're interested in knowing more about how voters become bamboozled and vote for candidates that do not serve their interests at all - you should check out What's The Matter With Kansas? by Thomas Frank.
However, in picking up where I left off last blog (and in picking back up my Kucinich point), honesty in government is something I've learned to believe doesn't exist and I think that's horribly unfair. It appears that Kucinich is what he says he is and he'll tell you what he really stands for, regardless of who you may be. He stands by his principles and, while it's cost him elections, it's saved him his soul and - at least in my case - has won him respect.
For whatever it's worth, though, I intend to follow his work until they either throw him out of government or elect him into a position where he can clean up the mess of the decades of insanity that have existed thus far. I sincerely hope Kucinich win his re-election bid in Ohio's 10th district. There needs to be at least one voice of reason in government (though I know he is not our only hope). He makes noise, but - unfortunately - he doesn't have the money for a bigger megaphone on a bigger stage.
As if I wasn't depressed enough about Kucinich's lack of a chance in the presidential election, now this?
No one should feel this disheartened in the political system at 21 years old. I've researched Kucinich and, everywhere I look, his name is attached to ideas that I whole-heartedly agree with, though they maybe radical ideas for anyone who actually wants to be in (or remain in) office. As I've written previously, in my observations, it seems like major party candidates make careers out of catering to whatever audience is listening. Though I will vote for Obama if nominated, my vote is in full acknowledgement of his guilt in this; a guilt I don't think can be avoided in today's political climate.
It's a symptom, though, of a sick political system as a whole. The ways in which politicians are elected: it's not about experience, but about name recognition (which is closely associated with funding). Even candidates who desperately want to do something good and change the landscape of government face enormous challenges in even being recognized as serious candidates without support of big business or influential lobbies. So, unless you are ridiculously rich and can, somehow, run an entire campaign on your own money, you wind up having to cozy up next to people you may have wanted to avoid, just to stay in the game.
Though the founders obviously did not think very highly of common folk (as evident by their decision to create the Electoral College to help decide election outcomes), I don't think they ever quite envisioned a political system that was so married to corporations and money. Just because a man is rich does not make him worthy of running a country.
The idea of "democracy" is not the type on government by which we claim to live today. Democracy is government for the people, by the people. This is PoliSci101. In a democracy - literally - EVERYONE has a say. Rather, what we have is a rather loose form of a republic; we have a representative government. There's nothing wrong with that except that we're kidding ourselves if we think there's anything about OUR form of republic that is true to its name.
This is something for which I don't even completely blame our government. WE don't vote. WE don't allow our government to hear our voices. WE say nothing more than we should. And then, when we actually do vote, many of us are not informed enough to vote for the candidates which best represent who we are and who are most qualified to defend our priorities and values. But, this is a rant better writers have gone on and - if you're interested in knowing more about how voters become bamboozled and vote for candidates that do not serve their interests at all - you should check out What's The Matter With Kansas? by Thomas Frank.
However, in picking up where I left off last blog (and in picking back up my Kucinich point), honesty in government is something I've learned to believe doesn't exist and I think that's horribly unfair. It appears that Kucinich is what he says he is and he'll tell you what he really stands for, regardless of who you may be. He stands by his principles and, while it's cost him elections, it's saved him his soul and - at least in my case - has won him respect.
For whatever it's worth, though, I intend to follow his work until they either throw him out of government or elect him into a position where he can clean up the mess of the decades of insanity that have existed thus far. I sincerely hope Kucinich win his re-election bid in Ohio's 10th district. There needs to be at least one voice of reason in government (though I know he is not our only hope). He makes noise, but - unfortunately - he doesn't have the money for a bigger megaphone on a bigger stage.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Eavesdropping And You!
I told you: the NSA really IS watching me! (Or, in this case, listening.)
"After more than a year of heated political wrangling, the Senate handed the White House a major victory Tuesday by voting to broaden the government's spy powers and to give legal protection to phone companies that cooperated in President Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program..."
This isn't good. I know right now we're talking about international calls / groups, but it just gives me a queasy feeling. It just doesn't sit well in my stomach. Today, it's eavesdropping on international calls out of suspicion; what's the excuse tomorrow? I'm uncomfortable knowing that at any time for any reason (since there's no or little accountability here, no one running to get a warrant with evidence in hand) that someone could be listening in on other (likely innocent) people. If this sort of thing is becoming tolerable, are they going to say that eavesdropping on activists is okay because they may all be guilty of trying to start riots?
I have friends overseas, one in India and one in South Africa, specifically. Whenever I write to them, I write as if someone other than my friends are reading. I often discuss politics with them (since whatever happens here will very likely effect them) and I often censor myself. Even in emails I send to friends in the US, I'm careful. It's unfortunate and it makes me worry about what could happen down the road. It makes me worried that there may come a day when activists, writers, artists, thinkers of all kinds may feel pressure to censor themselves because...who really knows who's watching or listening?
During and after the French Revolution, the governments in France and England forced a kind of censorship of writers, mostly poets. There's some really good political poetry from that time, but governments would shut down the publishers that printed such poems. Some writers just gave up; Wordsworth, in a way, is an example. He cooled off and decided it wasn't worth the trouble anymore.
We can't allow ourselves to be silenced in any way. Patriotism isn't, as supporters of legalized eavesdropping claim "in complying with what they believed in good faith was a legally binding order from the president." Patriotism IS defiance. Patriotism IS speech. Today, they claim their actions are against a small group of people in a very specific circumstance. You can choose to believe that, but - given this administration's propensity for lying - you may want to think about it a little bit harder.
In other news, there are more elections going on today. I really wish I could say I had faith in the people of this country, but the last eight years have taught me better. While I will support Obama, I will never say he was my first choice. I just pray he doesn't let me down...I pray he wins in the first place.
It's not, at all, an issue of "lesser evils." I don't see Obama (or Clinton either, really) as being an "evil." I think he has some good ideas, but I'm also cynical and tired of candidates saying anything they think will get them elected. That's one reason I don't like Clinton; she knows words (which is good) and she knows how to manipulate them so as to be as vague as she wants to be, depending on with whom she is speaking. I don't feel Obama is as guilty of that, but I think any major party candidate with a shot at winning does that; it's survival.
It's also unfortunate.
What's refreshing about third party candidates (or...Kucinich, haha) is that they seem more willing to actually say things. Truth in politics sounds like an oxymoron, but that is what I crave. Tell me the truth. Tell me what you'll really do. Broken campaign promises are as cliche (and predictable) as broken hearts.
"After more than a year of heated political wrangling, the Senate handed the White House a major victory Tuesday by voting to broaden the government's spy powers and to give legal protection to phone companies that cooperated in President Bush's warrantless eavesdropping program..."
This isn't good. I know right now we're talking about international calls / groups, but it just gives me a queasy feeling. It just doesn't sit well in my stomach. Today, it's eavesdropping on international calls out of suspicion; what's the excuse tomorrow? I'm uncomfortable knowing that at any time for any reason (since there's no or little accountability here, no one running to get a warrant with evidence in hand) that someone could be listening in on other (likely innocent) people. If this sort of thing is becoming tolerable, are they going to say that eavesdropping on activists is okay because they may all be guilty of trying to start riots?
I have friends overseas, one in India and one in South Africa, specifically. Whenever I write to them, I write as if someone other than my friends are reading. I often discuss politics with them (since whatever happens here will very likely effect them) and I often censor myself. Even in emails I send to friends in the US, I'm careful. It's unfortunate and it makes me worry about what could happen down the road. It makes me worried that there may come a day when activists, writers, artists, thinkers of all kinds may feel pressure to censor themselves because...who really knows who's watching or listening?
During and after the French Revolution, the governments in France and England forced a kind of censorship of writers, mostly poets. There's some really good political poetry from that time, but governments would shut down the publishers that printed such poems. Some writers just gave up; Wordsworth, in a way, is an example. He cooled off and decided it wasn't worth the trouble anymore.
We can't allow ourselves to be silenced in any way. Patriotism isn't, as supporters of legalized eavesdropping claim "in complying with what they believed in good faith was a legally binding order from the president." Patriotism IS defiance. Patriotism IS speech. Today, they claim their actions are against a small group of people in a very specific circumstance. You can choose to believe that, but - given this administration's propensity for lying - you may want to think about it a little bit harder.
In other news, there are more elections going on today. I really wish I could say I had faith in the people of this country, but the last eight years have taught me better. While I will support Obama, I will never say he was my first choice. I just pray he doesn't let me down...I pray he wins in the first place.
It's not, at all, an issue of "lesser evils." I don't see Obama (or Clinton either, really) as being an "evil." I think he has some good ideas, but I'm also cynical and tired of candidates saying anything they think will get them elected. That's one reason I don't like Clinton; she knows words (which is good) and she knows how to manipulate them so as to be as vague as she wants to be, depending on with whom she is speaking. I don't feel Obama is as guilty of that, but I think any major party candidate with a shot at winning does that; it's survival.
It's also unfortunate.
What's refreshing about third party candidates (or...Kucinich, haha) is that they seem more willing to actually say things. Truth in politics sounds like an oxymoron, but that is what I crave. Tell me the truth. Tell me what you'll really do. Broken campaign promises are as cliche (and predictable) as broken hearts.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Super Tuesday Through The Eyes Of A Pollworker
I woke up this morning with a text from 'Math' Kevin. It read: "Guys, I need help. I need a quote for class! Who did you vote for and why? Is the race for presidency clear and over?"
Did he think I could answer this in a text? I asked if I could message my response and he said sure, so I did and I thought I'd post it here as my post-Election Day response.
...................................................
You should have known you'd get no short answers from me!
I voted for Obama. He was not my first choice, but he was my "realistic" choice and became my only choice once Kucinich dropped out. I voted for Obama because I want a liberal in the White House. I don't think 'liberal' is a dirty word and that's also why I liked Kucinich so much. While Clinton is a Democrat, she's also sort of part of that old political machine of which I think people (and our generation, especially) are getting sick. When I say I want to see change, I almost want a complete revamping of the government. I guess I think - between the two of them, at least - Obama is the one who is most likely to think independently of that old machine. He's young and his "inexperience" may be what makes him the least corrupt among all the candidates.
But even in terms on inexperience, I think Obama has more than Bush did! Obama - I think - was a State senator for a while and then became the junior Senator from Illinois, so he's held public office for probably ten years or so in one form or another. Bush was a governor. That's it, as far as I know. He didn't even hold that office for very long. [I could be wrong, but I don't remember ever hearing about him holding any other political office. He owned a baseball team before he was governor, right!?] He was never in the Senate. A lot of presidents haven't been Senators. Experience in public office has never been this pressing an issue before.
Anyway, I voted for Obama because I really think he's the future of the Democratic party and is in the best position to pull the US out of this crazy war and all the other messes conservatives have left us. I also think he has a better chance of beating anyone the Republicans put up. Republicans seem to hate Clinton and can probably get more Republican voters to come out and vote against Clinton than they could against Obama. Clinton has baggage that Repubs can pull apart and unite their constituencies against. Again, Obama's "inexperience" saves him from that.
I don't think there are any clear winners, especially on the Democratic side, but even on the Republican side. Obviously, the Obama / Clinton race is neck and neck. McCain seems to be pulling ahead, but the Republican race seems to change almost daily. A few days ago, it was McCain versus Romney and no one was even talking about Huckabee. Now, Huckabee has won some key states and he looks to be back in it. While it's probably safe to say that McCain will win that nomination, Romney and Huckabee aren't even close to dead yet.
Huckabee terrifies me. The last thing we need is another religious fanatic in the White House. I'm so sick of that. Religion is actually a reason why I didn't like Edwards much. I don't want a religious man running the government. I want a man (or woman...haha) who can think objectively and make decisions on what's right for the nation (and the world, since the US has that power for now) as a whole, not just the religious percentages that fund their campaigns. I think that's so dangerous and it scares me - truly scares me - how many evangelicals come out to vote versus the rest of us. Running a country based on religion is not the way to go, especially considering our asses are in deep shit with this war. God's guidance has sort of sucked in this case and it's time to start looking at the actual human suffering and making decisions based on the people who actually exist and what's best for them. You can believe in God, but you shouldn't base laws or make decisions for an ever-more secular nation based on "Oh, God said so."
Bleh. This is long. Sorrrrry!
I think we'll have to wait out the Democratic side for a while. I feel like Clinton could get it, but that's just because I'm setting myself up for disappointment. I don't have anything really against Clinton and I will absolutely vote for her if she wins the nomination. I think either Democratic candidates will do a hell of a lot better than Bush (but I also don't think that's saying much!). I hope that - regardless of who wins the Dem. nomination - that citizens are fed up enough with the Bush administration that, even if they don't like Clinton, they'll vote for her over McCain. McCain seems to just want more of the same in a lot of ways. The only thing that makes me feel slightly better about McCain is that, at least, he WAS in a war and may have better perspective / strategy than Bush, but I'd still never vote for him.
Wow. I knew this would be long, but I didn't think it'd be THIS long. You probably only needed, like, a sentence, and I gave you a paper, but you gotta give me a break: I'm a PoliSci major!
...................................................
I was pondering the difference between hope and optimism yesterday as I drove back to Quibbletown (where Jess and I were pollworkers for the election) from my own polling place as Fellowship Farm. I suppose I can say I am hopefully Obama will win the nomination and the election, but I am not yet optimistic. I think you can have hope without really having a reason behind that hope, but optimism requires some firm evidence that things will work in that favor. I think optimism is an "educated hope."
There were lots of voters yesterday, more than we ever expected (as was evident by the fact that the town didn't give us nearly enough voting slips). Lots of people (including myself) declared party affiliations, almost all Democratic.
What I liked seeing the most, though, was - believe it or not - kids at the polling places with their parents. I think going to vote with my parents when I was younger is a huge reason why I wanted to vote so badly once I 'grew up' and why I only wanted to turn 18 so I could register. Of course, it wasn't computerized when I went into the booth with my parents. Haha. I just remember going with them and the impact that had on me. Now, with such a monumental and historical race going on, I hope that some of those kids remember this election and its importance, regardless of the outcome, and grow up to be good voters too. This election really could change everything, not in just who becomes president, but in the minds of future voters. If either Obama or Clinton win, the younger generation will no longer be stifled by the idea of someone who isn't an old white dude being president. It won't be an impossible / improbable idealistic thing anymore; it'll be something real. I know when my parents were younger, they could never have imagined a day when a woman and an African American were even in the race for president this far down the line.
I guess my thoughts went to the future partially because I am not optimistic, though very hopeful, and if liberals don't succeed this year (and if the US hasn't blown the world to bits by 2012) that the generation watching their parents vote this year will grow up to vote in the next election(s) - with this one in mind - and really force change to occur. I think this election has the power to really stick in people's minds because, regardless of who wins between Obama and Clinton, it WILL be a historic election. Neither one of these candidates was ever supposed to get this far. That, in and of itself, is something of a success and if we're not quite strong enough to pull it off this year, I am optimistic that we will be next time because it won't be such a taboo idea to have a "minority" run.
Someday, in the not too far off future, I hope women and non-white candidates become as normal in elections as computers and iPods have become throughout society. These things that never existed before have become so much a part of the culture that we can't imagine ourselves without them and I hope this sort of trend in electoral politics continues in a similar way. This is the first step and whether we take off or stumble, it's better than nothing and we're on our way.
Did he think I could answer this in a text? I asked if I could message my response and he said sure, so I did and I thought I'd post it here as my post-Election Day response.
...................................................
You should have known you'd get no short answers from me!
I voted for Obama. He was not my first choice, but he was my "realistic" choice and became my only choice once Kucinich dropped out. I voted for Obama because I want a liberal in the White House. I don't think 'liberal' is a dirty word and that's also why I liked Kucinich so much. While Clinton is a Democrat, she's also sort of part of that old political machine of which I think people (and our generation, especially) are getting sick. When I say I want to see change, I almost want a complete revamping of the government. I guess I think - between the two of them, at least - Obama is the one who is most likely to think independently of that old machine. He's young and his "inexperience" may be what makes him the least corrupt among all the candidates.
But even in terms on inexperience, I think Obama has more than Bush did! Obama - I think - was a State senator for a while and then became the junior Senator from Illinois, so he's held public office for probably ten years or so in one form or another. Bush was a governor. That's it, as far as I know. He didn't even hold that office for very long. [I could be wrong, but I don't remember ever hearing about him holding any other political office. He owned a baseball team before he was governor, right!?] He was never in the Senate. A lot of presidents haven't been Senators. Experience in public office has never been this pressing an issue before.
Anyway, I voted for Obama because I really think he's the future of the Democratic party and is in the best position to pull the US out of this crazy war and all the other messes conservatives have left us. I also think he has a better chance of beating anyone the Republicans put up. Republicans seem to hate Clinton and can probably get more Republican voters to come out and vote against Clinton than they could against Obama. Clinton has baggage that Repubs can pull apart and unite their constituencies against. Again, Obama's "inexperience" saves him from that.
I don't think there are any clear winners, especially on the Democratic side, but even on the Republican side. Obviously, the Obama / Clinton race is neck and neck. McCain seems to be pulling ahead, but the Republican race seems to change almost daily. A few days ago, it was McCain versus Romney and no one was even talking about Huckabee. Now, Huckabee has won some key states and he looks to be back in it. While it's probably safe to say that McCain will win that nomination, Romney and Huckabee aren't even close to dead yet.
Huckabee terrifies me. The last thing we need is another religious fanatic in the White House. I'm so sick of that. Religion is actually a reason why I didn't like Edwards much. I don't want a religious man running the government. I want a man (or woman...haha) who can think objectively and make decisions on what's right for the nation (and the world, since the US has that power for now) as a whole, not just the religious percentages that fund their campaigns. I think that's so dangerous and it scares me - truly scares me - how many evangelicals come out to vote versus the rest of us. Running a country based on religion is not the way to go, especially considering our asses are in deep shit with this war. God's guidance has sort of sucked in this case and it's time to start looking at the actual human suffering and making decisions based on the people who actually exist and what's best for them. You can believe in God, but you shouldn't base laws or make decisions for an ever-more secular nation based on "Oh, God said so."
Bleh. This is long. Sorrrrry!
I think we'll have to wait out the Democratic side for a while. I feel like Clinton could get it, but that's just because I'm setting myself up for disappointment. I don't have anything really against Clinton and I will absolutely vote for her if she wins the nomination. I think either Democratic candidates will do a hell of a lot better than Bush (but I also don't think that's saying much!). I hope that - regardless of who wins the Dem. nomination - that citizens are fed up enough with the Bush administration that, even if they don't like Clinton, they'll vote for her over McCain. McCain seems to just want more of the same in a lot of ways. The only thing that makes me feel slightly better about McCain is that, at least, he WAS in a war and may have better perspective / strategy than Bush, but I'd still never vote for him.
Wow. I knew this would be long, but I didn't think it'd be THIS long. You probably only needed, like, a sentence, and I gave you a paper, but you gotta give me a break: I'm a PoliSci major!
...................................................
I was pondering the difference between hope and optimism yesterday as I drove back to Quibbletown (where Jess and I were pollworkers for the election) from my own polling place as Fellowship Farm. I suppose I can say I am hopefully Obama will win the nomination and the election, but I am not yet optimistic. I think you can have hope without really having a reason behind that hope, but optimism requires some firm evidence that things will work in that favor. I think optimism is an "educated hope."
There were lots of voters yesterday, more than we ever expected (as was evident by the fact that the town didn't give us nearly enough voting slips). Lots of people (including myself) declared party affiliations, almost all Democratic.
What I liked seeing the most, though, was - believe it or not - kids at the polling places with their parents. I think going to vote with my parents when I was younger is a huge reason why I wanted to vote so badly once I 'grew up' and why I only wanted to turn 18 so I could register. Of course, it wasn't computerized when I went into the booth with my parents. Haha. I just remember going with them and the impact that had on me. Now, with such a monumental and historical race going on, I hope that some of those kids remember this election and its importance, regardless of the outcome, and grow up to be good voters too. This election really could change everything, not in just who becomes president, but in the minds of future voters. If either Obama or Clinton win, the younger generation will no longer be stifled by the idea of someone who isn't an old white dude being president. It won't be an impossible / improbable idealistic thing anymore; it'll be something real. I know when my parents were younger, they could never have imagined a day when a woman and an African American were even in the race for president this far down the line.
I guess my thoughts went to the future partially because I am not optimistic, though very hopeful, and if liberals don't succeed this year (and if the US hasn't blown the world to bits by 2012) that the generation watching their parents vote this year will grow up to vote in the next election(s) - with this one in mind - and really force change to occur. I think this election has the power to really stick in people's minds because, regardless of who wins between Obama and Clinton, it WILL be a historic election. Neither one of these candidates was ever supposed to get this far. That, in and of itself, is something of a success and if we're not quite strong enough to pull it off this year, I am optimistic that we will be next time because it won't be such a taboo idea to have a "minority" run.
Someday, in the not too far off future, I hope women and non-white candidates become as normal in elections as computers and iPods have become throughout society. These things that never existed before have become so much a part of the culture that we can't imagine ourselves without them and I hope this sort of trend in electoral politics continues in a similar way. This is the first step and whether we take off or stumble, it's better than nothing and we're on our way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
