Clinton may have something up her sleave related to Bush. Since she's openly a hawk, she may hope that a new war changes things. The thing that most americans don't realize is that our economy depends on fighting wars, since WW2 we've engaged in 207 conflicts. Especially since Bill gave away our manufacturing base with NAFTA.
Watch Bush open a new war in Iran. Bet on it. Pelosi is forcing the House to ok 100 billion already for this year and 70 bill for 2009 already in Iraq alone today . It's insane.
Mark , that would be quite an “October Surprise.”
In an interview this morning with USA Today Hillary Clinton said "I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on." As evidence, Clinton cited an Associated Press article that according to Clinton “found how Sen. Obama's support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me."
"There's a pattern emerging here," she said. Yes, there is, and we call it racism. Hillary Clinton’s comment about “hard-working Americans, white Americans” is a less cautious reiteration of the blatant racism that Bill Clinton began injecting into her campaign months ago. It’s not that she forgets that working people come in all skin colors and from many ethnicities, but that she intends to appeal to the racism of some Euro Americans. The Clintons are down and dirty political thugs in the tradition of Boss Tweed, LBJ, the KC Machine and Richard Daley. They're about as democratic as the NAM, the Wal-Mart Board of Directors, the Pinkertons or the CIA.
The left has been criticized before for saying that the United States is a cesspool of bigotry, but the unfolding election campaign continuously reinforces that opinion. We watched in amazement and anger as powerful anti-GLBT groups in both parties ripped the real ENDA to shreds because it extended the numbers of people who can sue for redress and would have been used by GLBT folks, women and minorities extensively. Then they dropped it and the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Bill to prevent them being used as ‘wedge issues’.
Obama, as expected, caved into that bigotry when we repeatedly denounced Jeremiah Wright for his ‘anti-Americanism’ and for Wrights entirely correct linkage of the barbaric 9-11 attacks to Bush’s abandonment of the Palestinians to the ethnic cleansing and apartheid policies of the zionists. Obama likewise caved into gaybashing bigots when featured vermin like the Rev. Donnie and Mary Mary in his campaign. (Wright is likely wrong about the origins of AIDS, but not about the depraved barbarity of the Tuskegee experiment.)
The problem is that the Republican are dead set on following up on the Clintons now open racism with some sort of ‘Willie Horton’ gambit. They’ve already done preliminary polling to see what they can get away with and used it in North Carolina. I could give a rat’s ass whether or not the Democrats lose. They’ve demonstrated time and again that they’re our enemy just as much as their Republican cousins.
My fear is that these racist offensives by political and religious leaders, just like their gaybashing campaigns, always end up emboldening skinheads and thugs who then go out and murder. And there are plenty of them around: just look at Jena, Louisiana and Oxnard California.
When the national victory came in 1920 for women's right to vote, seventy-two years after the first organized demand in 1848, only one signer of the Seneca Falls Declaration, Charlotte Woodward, a young worker in a glove factory had lived long enough to cast her ballot.
This took 72 years, a fight worthwhile. Now we have the strong possibility of the First Female President or Vice President and that is exciting. To be known, I am a Clinton supporter, I wish her Presidency rather the second seat. But, I am sure all those women who sacrificed, walked (literally) across this Nation shore to shore, were the focus of family tension and many faced imprisonment would be proud if Clinton makes either position on the Democrat ticket.
I believe that if we have our first Black President before a Woman President in US history would be reminiscent of 1869 women as they supported the 15th Amendment, which gave the vote to black men, hopefully ride the momentum into reaching their goal. But, 1869 is a long way off from the victory of 1920. I am not going to wait 72 years.
Just because I am a lesbian, doesn't mean I am dedicated to the DNC. I am dedicated to Clinton, I am a not a Democrat. I have no responsibility or loyalty to the DNC. If Clinton is not on the ticket. . .the DNC will NOT have my vote and I believe many others feel the same way.
I will vote my party line.
maria - thanks for that. very well put.
it seems that througout this election the importance of a first woman president has been totally overlooked by so many people.
i was even talking to a friend who said something about people voting for her "just to make some kind of feminist statement." and this is from a woman, i was so dissapointed to hear this. thats not why i voted for her, but why overlook the importance of having a woman running for president? its acceptable that african americans have voted for barack in huge numbers, and its not questioned by most people. but women who want to support a woman by voting for her is "some kind of feminist statement." she said it as if it were a put down.
this reminded me of my ex, who claimed herself a radical (in theory, but certainly not in practice), politically, yet she would constantly put down feminist movements, calling them cheesey, etc. this is coming from a queer woman. is this some kind of odd post feminist backlash thinking?
i really feel that so many women have no perspective when it comes to the history of women's rights. its like they have no recollection of what past generations had to fight for (who knows, if mccain gets in they might have to fight again, if his choice of judges are appointed), or they can't connect with it on a level that other people can in regards to the struggles of their ancestors, etc. the same can be said about some younger gays who don't really know their history or have a connection with the feeling of struggling for the most basic rights and respect. (now there is marraige, but when compared to the fights of the past, i think it pales in comparison.)
during this election it seems that whenever a woman tries to bring attention to how hard it is for women to break into any of the old boys clubs we have in this world, the eye rolling starts. its just not taken as seriously as other -isms that are thrown around. issues aside, i've heard so much anti woman talk thrown around in the past year, and a lot by women. . . its upsetting. yet people tip toe around words that could be seen as racist, they'll throw the anti woman sentiment around without thinking twice. neither is acceptable, to me, and neither should be to most people. but its a shame that one trumps the other.
disclaimer: these are just my own personal observations on this issue, in response to what maria has said here. please do not take it as anything negative against barack obama, because it is not. but these days commenting on blogs or starting conversations, it seems that anything i can say will somehow be taken as anti-obama. im simply talking about something other than his campaign. so please don't attack me! thanks.
Gosh, Maria , you certainly give voice to the kind racial sentiments Bill describes. You add a sexist element , but that simply gives a rational to your racism and makes it seem respectable, as if there was some sort of righteousness to your cause. If it could be managed, I'm sure that Clinton could easily just switch parties without missing a beat. Like Bill, she would be simply part of the Republican agenda.
Thanks Bill P. for pointing out Clinton's ugly and banal devisiveness, re; race. It's hard to stomach, but easy to believe that she would stoop to that kind of destructive , banal rhetoric. I think that she would just pick up where Bush left off with no change. The same kind of disrespect for human decency or the Constutional rules which have been the glue of this Republic.
As you expressed, resort to the very lowest denomenators , will empower the thugs and skinheads but I think also the religious fanatics who will not be laid to rest because Bush is gone.
If you recall the Nazi movement was preceeded by similar features of displaced hatred.Add the fact that Hitler engaged in what is called "military Keynesianism": he solved the problem of Germany's unemployment by creating a virtually continuous expansionist wartime economy (which has been happening in the U.S since WW2).
We also have an impossible debt. of 10 trillion dollars, and are going into a depression.
America is pretty trapped because, as most people know we don't make anything but munitions and armaments.
I don't want to say that this will happen but I do believe that there are some dangerous factors in play, which are comming to a head.
The NYTimes, wrote an article yesturday, that baring some Republican outrage, if Obama wins the character of both the Democratic Party and the politics of the country will change. That with the defeat of the Clinton machine, which has dominated the Democratic party with their Republican voraciousness, a whole new form of politics will come to be. Then again, Obama may have little to do with things.
October surprise, at least!
you know what, now listening to mike talk to maria and having reread her statement above i would like to retract the first line of my comment. i must have taken it in a different way when i first read it. im thinking my original thought was that she was trying to set some light onto the importance of a woman president, but after hearing further explination i can't say i agree with what she is saying at all. i didn't realise she would vote for mccain either. i cant agree now. so while i thought she was opening a conversation, i should have reread it before agreeing with her. i still back up the rest of what i said in regards to a discussion about these things.
so, i would like to officially retract the first line of my previous comment. i misread her and read into it what i was hoping she meant. oops.
(maybe i'm practising my repudiating and denouncing for when i run for office).
It seems to me that after each election so far this season, we are told as a result of the exit polls that 90-92% of the black vote went to Obama, and when it is put that way, no one makes anything about it. No one claims that this is racist in the reverse, that blacks are voting for Obama because he is black, although that is what is being implied. When Hillary states that she has a coalition of working whites, women, etc., she is lambasted as being a racist. but isn't she only also reflecting what is being reported by the exit polls? Does anyone doubt her facts, and is there not a double standard in play here?
I am not a Republican. I will not be voting for McCain.
That is not my party. I support Clinton, and if she is on the ticket I would vote for the Democrat ticket.
If not, my vote stays with my part.
Maira
Maria,
I heard you on the radio on Friday and must say that I believe you have a correct point of view--Hillary is the only one who can beat John McCain.
In response to AL's comment...
In the beginning Hillary had a large portion of the black vote - it only started getting into the 90-92% range after the comments in South Carolina by Bill Clinton. I am not black but I don't blame the black community for choosing not to support a candidate who is willing to pit blacks and whites against each other in order to win votes.
For all the charges of racism and misogyny that this campaign has generated, what has been lost in the discussion is that there is a large number of people who are simply looking for a more civilized political discourse in this country (particularly after 8 years of GWB) and those people are gravitating to Obama. I don't think it's fair to call those people racist or anti-women.
Commenting by HaloScan
