Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
JasonF
Published Letters: 141
No one is questioning that the 1960's were pivotal times and that great progressive gains were made. The efficacy of fighting and refighting those battles by people whose political views were formed in the '60's is a bigger question.
Personally, I hope to avoid the "wife of a draft dodger vs. Vietnam POW" storyline in 2008. As a post-Boomer, Barack Obama finally offers us the opportunity to deal effectively with the problems of the present and future without the baggage of the '60's (and the 1990's, for that matter). The description of Obama as "post-partisan" may be a cliche, but his message is drawing new people into the political process.
So, the Clinton strategy was to supress the votes of likely Obama supporters in Nevada, but be certain that the votes of likely Clinton supporters in Michigan and Florida are counted?
Democrats, just because someone is ostensibly "on our side" doesn't mean we have to support these tactics. We must demand better of our leadership and potential nominees.
It's okay to be enthusiastic about a political candidate. I recognize that this is a rare phenomenon, but being inspired by a candidate while simultaneously approving of their policy positions is possible. Every once in a while, a candidate who is not the "lesser of two evils", "vote for while holding your nose for the greater good" type of individual emerges. For many of us, that candidate is Barack Obama. We are not all young, naive, or unrealistic. We simply set the bar a little higher and envision what is possible with effective leadership and are doing our best to make this hope a reality.
Hope has made it surprisingly far in 2008, let's keep it moving forward. Yes we can!
In Washington state, we have a Democratic primary and caucus, but delegates are determined based on the caucus only. I don't like this at all, but we can later see if there is a major discrepancy between the primary and caucus results. If anything, caucuses tend to favor party insiders (i.e., Senator Clinton supporters).
Someone wrote that caucuses discriminate against "Hillary's People" (Elderly, women, and Latinos) because they are held in the "evening". In Washington state, our caucuses were held between 1 and 3 pm. There were many seniors, women, and Latinos there - the vast majority of them supporting Barack Obama. Today's sweep appears to be a real movement, not the result of some biased sample.
The media are doing an excellent job of dividing the electorate into convenient labels: "black", "Latino", "white", "man", "woman", "blue collar", "college-educated", "religious", "secular", "young", "old" etc. I don't see any need for us to engage in this any further by trying to quantify who are "Hillary's people" or "Obama's people". The bigger issue is to try and bring more PEOPLE into the political process.
Most Obama supporters are not smug, arrogant, or gloaters (and I apologize for those who are). Far from it. I was thrilled to see so many people involved in democracy at today's Democratic caucus and (despite being an Obama supporter) went out of my way to ensure that the voices of Clinton supporters were heard. This spirit of cooperation and common purpose is what it's supposed to be about. This is the better politics that Senator Obama speaks about - Let's not lose sight of that.
I value service to others above all else, and I support Barack Obama. Given his personal history, it's hard to view him as selfish or a self-aggrandizer. He could have had any job in the world (and the money to go with it), but chose to be a community organizer on the south side of Chicago. His success at that endeavor, and those that have followed it, is a result of his ability to bring out the best in others and rally them toward a common purpose. These are qualities that I would very much like to see in our next President.
That's demonstrably false. You might not like the candidate, but study after study shows that he's got intelligent supporters - at least if you equate intelligence with education level (I've seen some exceptions to this rule...). For better or worse, Senator Obama seems to draw folks with all the fancy degrees and book learnin'.
As much as I might disagree with them, Senator Clinton and her supporters are probably also pretty smart.
Speaking of specifics, I'd like to see which of the GOP's "sound and proven" ideas Senator McCain is referring to. If we can genuinely enter into an evidence-based discussion, the GOP's prospects in November are not very good.
Likewise, an endorsement of Barack Obama by John Edwards would allow the Democratic Party to keep moving forward toward the general election. We're waiting patiently and, as always, hoping.
There's a conservative organization called "Move America Forward"? If they're interested in moving America forward aren't they, by definition, progressive? I suppose "Move America Forward" sounds better than "Move America Backward" or "Regressives for Change", etc.
Every objective measure that I've seen indicates that Senator Obama will be a stronger general election candidate than Senator Clinton, yet Clinton supporters often maintain the opposite without supporting evidence. Why?
I care about the anonymous poster's Ph.D. I'm sure that she is not defined by the degree, but obtaining a Ph.D. requires unbelievable persistence, patience, hard work, and (dare I say it?) hope. We should be proud of those people who are able to achieve such a thing. I think her mentioning the degree was meant to convey that not all Obama supporters are naive, inexperienced, 20-somethings.
Mr. Shapiro referred to Senator Clinton's Xerox line as a "potent putdown". How potent can it be when the audience (and nation) boos? Thank goodness that most of the Clintons' mudslinging seems to have backfired this year. Let's leave the Rovian tactics to the Republicans.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
