Hillary Clinton expected to win. This troubles me. Ego is necessary in that world. I get it. What I cannot get past is how it's somehow acceptable to her supporters that she voted for the war, and the surges that have followed. Were you opposed to the war? I was from the first time I heard the early chatter that preceded it. Can she honestly admit she made a mistake? I don't think she has any intention of getting us all-the-way-out of Iraq. She aligns herself with the war's architects. Plus, she is owned. Much like Nancy Pelosi. Shame on them both. I hoped for much more.
I first heard about Barack Obama on Al Franken's blog, which preceded his Air America Radio stint. (Early in 2003) That's when I learned of Obama's run for the Senate. He sounded enlightened and articulate. I thought his keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention was a high point that election year, and there were few. Why are people put-off by his ability to speak in an intelligible manner? Is this what happens when a retarded imbecile is the president for 8 years? People have lowered the bar, and now don't want someone too intelligent, or worse yet...an intellectual! Dumbed-down comes to mind. Oh, and just a reminder-I did cast my vote for Dennis Kucinich in the primary. The true anti-war candidate. Since I voted absentee a few weeks before February 5th, he was already gone by the time my vote was tallied. Squeezed out by a political system that refuses to evolve. I admit it-I am scared shitless at the prospect of another republican regime. The current bastards ground me down. The thought of McCain calling the shots (so to speak) is mortifying. Ralph Nader doesn't upset me, either. People ought to calm down and listen to what he's saying, instead of being whipped into a frenzy at his announcement of today. He's right, you know. The two-party system is broken, just like so many archaic systems here in freedom land. As he said, if the democratic nominee doesn't win in a LANDSLIDE victory this year, then the democratic party needs to seriously regroup and rethink itself.
I was raised by Kennedy-loving democrats. Supporting Obama in the general election is not a stretch. But wait, there's more. The idea of a mixed-race president sounds great to me! It's long past time. (By a couple hundred years.) Since so much of this planet we share is inhabited by people that do not look like us, I think it would be a positive statement about our ability to adapt. Include. Change. The fact that his supporter's numbers continue to confound the media and everyone else tells me that there are a lot if us who want something different in ways that directly affect the future of the world. Hillary is an intelligent, respected, powerful woman. A woman that supported the war. Many Americans did. Their blind belief in an alleged quick fix has destroyed more than they know. Yet. But they will, in the decades ahead. As will their descendants. And mine. It doesn't seem to get mentioned enough, but I am one that admits to a certain degree of resentment for anyone who foolishly believed the war in Iraq was the answer. I did not and will not ever view an illegal war as the answer. That's who I am. Who are you?
9 comments:
thank you for this post. a voice of reason.
I'm not sure if I'm wholly in the Obama camp, then again I haven't seen anyone else half as worthy of my vote.
I am someone who supported John Edwards. I am somewhat ambivalent about the two remaining Democratic candidates, but am fully prepared to vote for the name on the top of the ticket. I wish Barack Obama were a bit more progressive. I like him, I love the cultural fact of his candidacy. There is something so profoundly moving having a mixed race man this close to being our next President. It could put right so many wrongs. That in itself gives me hope, but I am a holdout for single-payer health care.
Beautifully put, Annie. And I think you've isolated the main point with Hillary here:
"Can she honestly admit she made a mistake?"
Y'know, I don't think she can. Either that or the people who have her ear don't consider it a mistake at all, and are pleased at the results of the invasion - whatever the cost to other people.
Like your other commenters, I'm not 100% convinced by Obama, but if I was American then I'd definitely be voting for him - as a 'lesser of the other evils' type of vote.
Well, at this point, I'm voting for the lesser of all the evils, which would be Obama. I like what he has to say. He's young and unseasoned, but maybe that's what we need in Washington. A fresh new face instead of "meet the new boss, same as the old boss".
And there have been enough Clintons and Bushes in office since the 80's.
As for Nader, I am strongly opposed to his joining the race b/c now he'll siphon votes away from Obama. He should put the good of the country first, before his gigantic ego. Gore would have won if Nader hadn't run in 2000.
Yes, Annie,
The war in Iraq is the perfect litmus test of judgment, character,honesty, and attentiveness. We didn't get caught up in the war hysteria because we have the healthy gift of reason and skepticism. We understood the corporate media was used as a propaganda outlet.
We didn't succcumb to emotional pandering. Manipulation of anger and fear allowed for the nation's senseless downward spiral.
We are part of the 25% of Americans who didn't fall for the Reich Wing's war scam. Maybe enough people will wake up after this Republican nightmare to bring change.
As George Clinton says, "Think! It ain't illegal yet".
I don't believe Nader will draw off a significant number of votes this time. (Fool me once, won't get fooled again) I like to think even the most ardant, naive, and wild-eyed Naderite will see that the vote is about ending the Republican dictatorship, and that means voting for the Dem.
That said, the more Nader is allowed to present the anti-corporatist perspective to the public the better. Maybe Hillary and Obama will understand the resonance of the message and amplify it.
That could actually be Nader's positive influence.
The Iraq War vote should always come back to bite Hillary on the bum. She could earn so much respect if she just admitted she made a mistake but i agree with you, she isn't going to do it but if i was advising her, i would be steering her the way towards a hand on heart, i made a mistake and i apologise type speech.
This is so well written, Annie.
" Ralph Nader doesn't upset me, either. People ought to calm down and listen to what he's saying, instead of being whipped into a frenzy at his announcement of today. "
It would help a LOT if he stayed on that message between the elections, but he disappears. Then he pops up to run every four years and say that he wants to keep the issues in the forefront, but here's the incredibly predictable thing - FEW PEOPLE BOTHER LISTENING. Therefore, he really does no good for the process, and helps only the Republicans. And if Diebold is going to run this election, too, they won't need any help.
Either Nader really needs the ego gratification, or the RNC is paying for his participation. Either way, he should go back to harassing car companies.
Post a Comment