I hate to admit it, but I'm in this area myself. As I mentioned, there's a great deal of enthusiasm for Hillary here in Long Beach. There's a lesbian couple that lives a few doors down from us and they have Hillary signs up, Hillary bumper stickers, etc. Prior to the California primary, these didn't really prompt a reaction from me, since I figured everyone in my Zip code was voting for either Obama or Clinton, no big whoop. Now, every time I walk or drive by, I'm seized by an urge to tear the sign down, to knock on their door and ask them if they approve of Hillary being such a destructive bitch, and all kinds of insults and means of lashing out that I'm uncomfortable even thinking.
It comes down to this: I'm not angry and disillusioned with Hillary because she's an assertive woman participating in the rough and tumble of politics. I'm angry and disillusioned with her because she's playing exactly the same politics of destruction and deception that have poisoned the well of American democracy for the last twenty or more years. In spite of her partisan differences with the man, Hillary is the fruit of the Lee Atwater revolution in politics. As Andrew Sullivan has noted, this is to a large part still the same damned fight—culturally, politically, societally—that started with Vietnam and the civil rights movement. Most Americans under 50 are past that conflict and this election represents our first real chance to get past it. Hillary's tactics represent the establishment's struggles to keep us in it and her supporters are the enablers who keep that struggle going.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Is McCain screwed?
His finance director is an active lobbyist for the firm that lobbied on behalf of the McDonnell-Douglas/Airbus consortium. Two of his other senior staff are on leave from the same firm.
I'm not arguing whether this contract was fairly won by MD/Airbus or not. The rule interpretations that were made in reaction to a number of points raised by MD/Airbus seemed reasonable to me. The fact that Airbus successfully made the case for their plane (their main advantage involved size, with the adapted Airbus planes carrying much more cargo per plane and having much longer range) is precisely what you're supposed to do. Most of the assembly will be done in the U.S., so you're not talking about a lot of jobs lost.
But on the merits of the sale, MD/Airbus being chosen seemed reasonable, with Boeing's indignation somewhat tempered by the lease agreement scandal from a few years ago. That company doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt.
ALL THAT SAID.
McCain's top advisors work for a company that actively lobbied on behalf of a company based in France over a good American company.
How about them apples? How do you think THAT is going to blunt McCain's recent attempts to start raising funds for the general election?
I'm not arguing whether this contract was fairly won by MD/Airbus or not. The rule interpretations that were made in reaction to a number of points raised by MD/Airbus seemed reasonable to me. The fact that Airbus successfully made the case for their plane (their main advantage involved size, with the adapted Airbus planes carrying much more cargo per plane and having much longer range) is precisely what you're supposed to do. Most of the assembly will be done in the U.S., so you're not talking about a lot of jobs lost.
But on the merits of the sale, MD/Airbus being chosen seemed reasonable, with Boeing's indignation somewhat tempered by the lease agreement scandal from a few years ago. That company doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt.
ALL THAT SAID.
McCain's top advisors work for a company that actively lobbied on behalf of a company based in France over a good American company.
How about them apples? How do you think THAT is going to blunt McCain's recent attempts to start raising funds for the general election?
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Maybe Ferraro has a point
She says that Obama is only where he is in the polls because he's black. Well, that lucky ducky! Sure, I can see that. He's definitely benefited from the support of blacks in the Democratic primaries.
Now, as Josh Marshall points out, you have to counterbalance that with the fact that a lot of white people won't vote for him because he's black. Ferraro says, in the interview linked above, "Sexism is a bigger problem... It's OK to be sexist in some people's minds. It's not OK to be racist."
Granted, it's not OK to admit to being racist. But does she seriously believe that there are no racists left in the United States because it's just not OK?
But for the sake of discussion, I'm willing to grant her this point: Obama has benefited from both the support of black voters who support Obama at least in part because of the color of his skin and from the support of white voters for the same reason. The old liberal race guilt thing. I'm quite willing to admit that I think it's thrilling that a black man is so close to becoming President. Certainly part of the enthusiasm for his candidacy across the board is the history in the making, the sense that his election would in some way and in some small part correct one of the original founding sins of this country.
And this is a historic election. Because women did not get the vote in this country until even after black men, those who were mere property becoming (at least de jure) members of the body politic even before women. So we've got people who are supporting Obama at least in part because he's black and...
We've got people who are supporting Clinton at least in part because she's a woman.
And not just a woman. Let's turn Ferraro's assertion back at her preferred candidate. Hillary Clinton is in this race not just because she's a woman, but because of the fact that she's a woman married to a powerful man. She benefits twice over from these accidents of circumstance.
I live in a town with a pretty significant lesbian population and they overwhelmingly support Hillary. Do you think it's because they all happen to have exactly the same issues on health care reform and relations with countries perceived to be hostile to the U.S.? The positions on the status of NAFTA and future trade negotiations as well as environmental policies? I think they probably do support much of Hillary's platform. And I'm sure that they support much of Hillary's platform because it's Hillary's platform and she's a woman and they're voting for (or really have voted for; the primary's already happened here) the first serious woman candidate for the Presidency.
But Hillary benefits from that support because she's a woman. And she's a woman in that position because she's married to Bill Clinton.
So I score it this way:
Update: Kevin Drum piles on.
Now, as Josh Marshall points out, you have to counterbalance that with the fact that a lot of white people won't vote for him because he's black. Ferraro says, in the interview linked above, "Sexism is a bigger problem... It's OK to be sexist in some people's minds. It's not OK to be racist."
Granted, it's not OK to admit to being racist. But does she seriously believe that there are no racists left in the United States because it's just not OK?
But for the sake of discussion, I'm willing to grant her this point: Obama has benefited from both the support of black voters who support Obama at least in part because of the color of his skin and from the support of white voters for the same reason. The old liberal race guilt thing. I'm quite willing to admit that I think it's thrilling that a black man is so close to becoming President. Certainly part of the enthusiasm for his candidacy across the board is the history in the making, the sense that his election would in some way and in some small part correct one of the original founding sins of this country.
And this is a historic election. Because women did not get the vote in this country until even after black men, those who were mere property becoming (at least de jure) members of the body politic even before women. So we've got people who are supporting Obama at least in part because he's black and...
We've got people who are supporting Clinton at least in part because she's a woman.
And not just a woman. Let's turn Ferraro's assertion back at her preferred candidate. Hillary Clinton is in this race not just because she's a woman, but because of the fact that she's a woman married to a powerful man. She benefits twice over from these accidents of circumstance.
I live in a town with a pretty significant lesbian population and they overwhelmingly support Hillary. Do you think it's because they all happen to have exactly the same issues on health care reform and relations with countries perceived to be hostile to the U.S.? The positions on the status of NAFTA and future trade negotiations as well as environmental policies? I think they probably do support much of Hillary's platform. And I'm sure that they support much of Hillary's platform because it's Hillary's platform and she's a woman and they're voting for (or really have voted for; the primary's already happened here) the first serious woman candidate for the Presidency.
But Hillary benefits from that support because she's a woman. And she's a woman in that position because she's married to Bill Clinton.
So I score it this way:
- Obama benefits from being black, but blacks comprise only 13% of the population. Clinton benefits from being a woman, and women comprise 52% of the population. Advantage: Clinton.
- Hillary has accomplished little that doesn't rely on her position as Bill Clinton's wife. I'm not saying that if she wasn't married to Bill Clinton that she wouldn't now be a formidable person in her own right. But she was mentioned as a Presidential candidate (and got her Senate seat as a clear carpetbagger) even prior to Bill leaving office in 2001 in large part because she was his wife. Obama is no fortunate son, brother, friend, or husband. Advantage: Clinton.
Update: Kevin Drum piles on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
