Wednesday, March 05, 2008

To My Fellow Democrats

May I just say, if we are foolish enough to choose the candidate the Republicans want in November,

  • the one on whom they have boxes and boxes and boxes of opposition material
  • the one who doesn't attract Independents, and whose sole consistent constituency has been older white women
  • the one whose supposed claims to national-security and legislative experience are going to be utterly decimated by P.O.W. and 25-year Senator John McCain
  • the one that Master of Class Rush Limbaugh is telling his followers to vote for
we deserve exactly what we get?

ARGH.

33 comments:

  1. You are exactly right.

    ReplyDelete
  2. No, we don't deserve it. And it hasn't happened yet. Obama is still solidly ahead on delegates. Let's hope.

    But McCain can also be attacked. He was reprimanded over the Keating scandal, which goes to the heart of his whole shtick about being the most honest, lobbyist-free politician who ever lived.

    He is a major flip-flopper. After voting against the Bush tax cuts as a "matter of conscience," he is now running on a platform of making them permanent.

    He has said there's nothing wrong if we spend 100 more years in Iraq.

    He has falsely claimed that he called for Rumsfeld's resignation, when he never did any such thing.

    He is old and boring.

    He is a Republican.

    He does not represent change.

    Hillary has proven all too well that she is adept at unfair attacks that are effective.

    Everyone already knew there's plenty of opposition dirt on Hillary, and yet she has come this far in spite of it.

    Americans love a dynasty, whatever they say. That's why we currently have an unqualified president.

    So Hillary can win. And even though I'm pissed at her over the last few weeks, if she's the nominee, I will vote for her.

    But I think Obama will get the nomination. And I am worried that Hillary will have damaged him entering into the fall campaign. And if Obama loses to McCain based on a continuation of the sort of attacks that Hillary initiated, I will never forgive her, just as I will never forgive Ralph Nader for Bush.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wouldn't it be terrible if we allowed ourselves to be torn apart simply because we have too much talent in the Democratic party this time? I remember watching the first debate and thinking I'd be happy with any of those people on the stage (well, maybe not so much Gravel or Kucinich, although there's certainly a place for the perennial gadfly). The point is, we have an amazing opportunity to lift politics up out of the mire created by Rush Limbaugh and his ilk--do we really want to elect a president based on Rush Limbaugh‘s opinions, pro or con? Golly, I hope not. Wouldn’t that negate everything Barack Obama stands for? I’m grateful for the tone Obama set early on, for the fire and the reasoned positions on the issues. . . I like him . . . I really like him! It saddens me, however, when Democrats join Republicans in demonizing a good woman, a smart, compassionate advocate for so many. Yes, I’m one of the “older white women” it’s so easy to dismiss--I’m an older white woman who used to be a young white woman, and I haven’t lost a bit of my idealism. Not one bit. It has acquired a coat of pragmatism along the way, that’s all. Toughness in this arena impresses the heck out of me--Hillary’s my hero! But I’m a Democrat first, and I will joyfully, earnestly support the democratic nominee this year, whoever that may be.

    Thank you for your enthusiasm for the political process--and, as we old-timers used to say, “Keep the faith, baby!”

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hillary won and the Democrats lost yesterday. But that was yesterday. Obama is still ahead and we still have tomorrow. We have a whole host of tomorrows to come! Have heart, dear Democrats. Get the word out! McCain & the continuation of the Republican dynasty is not the way of the future! We DO deserve better than that!!

    ReplyDelete
  5. oh for goodness sake. get over yourself!

    It's folks like you who can't see past their chosen one who are dividing the democrats and making it such a contentious race. both democratic candidates are good, both are electable.

    don't be an overdramatic baby about the fact that your preference couldn't pull it out in states that he needed.

    (and for the record, I am also for Obama. I'm just sick and tired of the melodrama infecting so many of the rest of his supporters.)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Actually, the pundits have said time and again that sources from the McCain camp want Obama to be the candidate, because they know he's the one they can truly decimate.

    I do not understand the vitriole against Hillary Clinton. I wish I could, but I can't.

    ReplyDelete
  7. See, this is the problem with the primaries. Not that I have a better way of choosing a candidate.

    But HOW does it make sense that two people so alike in their philosophies can tear one another apart for months... and then one of them has to turn around and clap their hands in support for the winner? It doesn't make sense... it's so very defeatist. "Well, you can't have the best," says the wounded loser, "But you KNOW you don't want the other guy..."

    *sigh* I'm from Ohio. I've never been so stressed out about voting. Either way, I'm sure I'll be happy with whomever is chosen for the Democratic nominee-- I like them both.

    But honestly-- I'm 22. There has been a Bush or a Clinton in the White House for my *whole life.* Change can definitely be a good thing. CNN is reporting rumors of that "dream ticket" though... hmmm...

    ReplyDelete
  8. I freely admit this post was written in a state of immature pique, that there is still plenty of reason and time for hope (even if Hillary wins the nomination), and that I don't have all the political information out there. But I was really hoping for a move toward closure for Obama last night so he could start ramping up to fight McCain, rather than this ongoing inter-party battle that just makes everyone tired. (Or makes Obama a stronger candidate. Or keeps the Republicans from getting a chance to focus on just one Democrat. Or . . . There are so many ways to spin it, and only time will prove someone right.)

    I've said several times in RL that this election feels like a fascinating, exciting, character-driven, high-stakes novel, and I wish it *were* a novel so I could flip to the end and be sure there was a happy ending (which, for me right now, equals an Obama victory, but is really whichever candidate proves best for our country in the long run). And then I could relax and enjoy the human drama of it. But as it is: on we go.

    ReplyDelete
  9. My husband found this about the Democratic primary problem. You might find it interesting.

    My whole problem with Hilary is that she's a CLINTON... Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton? Again? Really? What are we, a monarchy?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I could not agree more. I'm tired of the spin. Which, is exactly how she won yesterday. Pretty lame way to win delegates in my opinion. I am just surprised that people are still buying into the fear scheme.

    I think the moral of this story is going to be truth prevails. The elementary games she's playing won't get her very far, plus, I don't consider her story the underdog. That would be Obama.

    ReplyDelete
  11. You are really offensive here, Cheryl.

    -Nancy Werlin

    ReplyDelete
  12. Is it a "problem" that we have two very capable and very qualified candidates?

    Is it a problem that we (democrats) are very happy and passionate about our respective candidate?

    Is it a problem that these two candidates represent an historic watershed moment not only in polititcs but in our social narrative regarding sex and race?

    Is it a problem that the republicans were so disenchanted with their slate of candidates that their choice was essentially "who will hurt us least?"?

    Like you Cheryl, I wish I could flip to the end and be assured that it will all be alright. But I am enjoying the ride! I for one am a Clinton supporter. I support her not because I was duped or "spun" into it. I thought and deliberated and took my civic responsibility very seriously. Folks, please remember that we all have a common aim here. Now is not the time to turn this into an "us" versus "them"...but let us celebrate what is happening here.

    Take care.
    Amanda

    ReplyDelete
  13. P.S. I love reading your blog!!

    Amanda

    ReplyDelete
  14. One of the predictions from the I-Ching for the Year of the Rat and
    interpreted by world-renown philosopher and geomancer Paul Ng
    (quoted from his website: www.paulng.com/CMS/index.php?/archives/18-PREDICTIONS-FOR-2008-Year-of-Earth-Rat.html):

    "Thunder-Earth Yu contains only 1 "Yang" and 5 "Yin 's." This is quite
    an extreme situation for the dominance of "woman" power. Many women
    not only would climb to senior corporate but also political positions.
    […] Female power predominates in this year's world politics. Many
    countries may elect female presidents, including the USA. However,
    controversies would also be abundant. This is not really a good year
    to head up countries such as the USA or UK."

    You can find your Chinese horoscope on his website.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Scary.

    About what Robert said, I've also been wondering why the Keating scandal hasn't been reported on. Or maybe I'm missing that.

    Thanks for the link.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Interesting prediction, anonymous.

    And I'm sorry if you were offended, Nancy. You are very welcome to list the reasons it would be foolish for us to nominate Obama against McCain instead.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "You are really offensive here, Cheryl."

    What a gross comment. I'm not American, so it doesn't directly affect me either way, but in any case - passionate involvement (even if I were to disagree with you) is so much more refreshing to hear from south of the border than apathy. Or condescending shushes, for that matter.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I totally agree with you. While Obama is still leading, it is crucial that he maintain that lead and win the nom. We can't give the Republicans what they want.

    ReplyDelete
  19. If Clinton's constituency is primarily older white women, how did she get roughly half of the Democratic vote? Are you saying half the Democratic voters are older white women? I hope you don't work with numbers much.

    And what do you have against older white women anyway? If not for older white women like Hillary Clinton, you'd probably be a secretary right now.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Here's a good article on the electoral demographics -- written two weeks ago (a lifetime in this election), but I believe it's still true: http://nymag.com/news/imperialcity/44216/ It gives credence to my remark, though indeed the two candidates are splitting most every other group, with advantages varying from state to state, which is where her 50% came from. But the only group she wins over and over and over? White women. (And, to be fair, the only groups he wins over and over and over? African-Americans and the young.)

    I have nothing against older white women -- I fully hope to be one myself someday (if I don't count as one already)! But I strongly object to the idea that I should vote for Hillary because she's the first viable female candidate (if that's what you were implying, dear anonymous), or that I'm any less of a feminist because I support Obama instead. You can read some thoughts on my brand of feminism here: http://chavelaque.blogspot.com/2005/11/whats-modern-girl-to-do.html

    ReplyDelete
  21. You are absolutely right, Cheryl. Both my husband and I have decided that IF Obama wins the popular vote and has more delegates, but the Clintons bully their way into the nomination (thus splitting the party), then this country does get what it deserves. We will no longer participate in its self-destruction, however. We will no longer be registered voters.

    ReplyDelete
  22. So you think Obama is better than Clinton because he attracts more African-Americans and young people while she attracts more older Caucasian women? WHAT?

    Stick to pontificating about editing.

    ReplyDelete
  23. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larry-david/on-the-red-phone_b_90338.html

    not fair, but funny.

    ReplyDelete
  24. No, anonymous, I think he's better for all the reasons I listed here: http://chavelaque.blogspot.com/2008/01/
    why-i-support-barack-obama.html

    And it would be nice for you to have the courage of your opinions and sign your name the next time you want to argue about something. The Name/URL option allows that, you know. (Another reason I support Barack: transparency. http://freegovinfo.info/node/1598)

    ReplyDelete
  25. Dear Cheryl,
    I have not read all of these comments because I would like to respond as directly as I can to what you wrote.

    Hillary is my hero. Hillary is my gal. Hillary is my choice.
    I am as passionate about her candidacy as you are about Barack. I want her to win. I am exactly the same age as she is, and have known about her since we both graduated from college. I admire and trust her.

    Feminism is my religion. Not only do I want to see a woman lead this country in my lifetime, I want to see this woman do so.

    I want you to see how I, and many others, feel.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I'm with you, Cheryl.

    ReplyDelete
  27. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  28. If the superdelegates vote against who the pledged delegates - and it's looking quite likely Obama will have a lead - then I will personally not be voting for any superdelegate that voted against the popular vote, should I have the chance to. And that stands whether Clinton or Obama as the lead in pledged delegates.

    As far as the math goes, though, it's really looking like Obama. It would be very difficult for her to come up with a pledged delegate lead at this point.

    By the way, when this shtick is over, Dems should really look at this superdelegate system. I understand that it's there to prevent, oh, I dunno, Colbert from winning the nomination, but it is so insanely undemocratic it almost gives me a headache.

    Hm, blogger seems to be eating my comments.

    ReplyDelete
  29. I'm responding to the comment that opposes Hillary Clinton because it would mean "Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton." Asking if we're a monarchy?

    I don't understand this objection. It is illogical. We should vote against a candidate because her husband was President before? Because a father and son from a different party were also presidents? ???

    The Bush presidents and the Clintons (president and candidate) do not make a monarchy! We elect our presidents --they don't succeed just because of their name. There's no dynasty either (I've seen that term used for this same argument elsewhere)--the Bushes and the Clintons are from different parties--in case that has escaped your notice. They represent very different approaches to policy and law in the US.

    Why should we vote against Hillary because the American people were stupid enough to elect George W. Bush (at least once) and his father before him? What does that have to do with Hillary's candidacy?

    Absolutely nothing.

    If you prefer Obama, that's okay. There are lots of good reasons for that preference. You don't need reasons that try to push the untenable position that Clinton and Bush are somehow part of the same "dynasty." Or that having Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton presidencies makes a monarchy or dynasty, or sets some bad precedent for family political power at all.

    We've had strong political families before--Adams, Roosevelt, Kennedy.

    For me, it makes no sense to discriminate against a candidate based on their name. No matter whether that name is Clinton or Obama.

    ReplyDelete
  30. What I think would be awesome is if Clinton and Obama got together as a Dynamic Duo! Then we'd just storm the White House.

    I do have a lot of respect for McCain, though. My dad fought in Vietnam too (I'm a war baby) and though he wasn't a POW like McCain was, he still is trying to get over his experiences, 37 years later. But war experience aside, for a Republican, McCain's pretty decent.

    I said "for a Republican," now. But it's true.

    And sorry, gal, but I still like Hillary. I ain't trying to be decisive. I've just been watching her for a while, and I like what she does.

    And holy moly, I had better not be an older woman! That's just wrong! You must be talking about somebody else!

    ReplyDelete
  31. Hell's bells, I meant *divisive*.

    Me proofread real pretty someday.

    ReplyDelete
  32. As the campaign rolls on, I’m beginning to think Samantha Power is right.

    ReplyDelete